Issa Hammers NY Times for 'Hit Piece'

The New York Times today published a lengthy article on Republican Congressman Darrell Issa, which made us wonder where the substantive investigations were into Barack Obama's past back when he ran for president. Of course, Issa is now head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and investigating the Obama Administration (and being stonewalled every step of the way), so it's time to go after Issa.

He's not taking it lightly.

Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) office has dismissed an article in The New York Times about his work in Washington as a “hit piece.”

In a memo released Monday, Issa’s office slammed the article, which examined connections between Issa’s private business interests and his work as a congressional leader.

“The New York Times piece is riddled with factual errors and careless assertions that has resulted in a story predicated on innuendo and not fact,” said Frederick R. Hill, an Issa spokesman.

“It’s disappointing that the so-called ‘paper of record’ has decided to publish a story that is nothing more than a compilation of left-wing blog posts that are easily found by a simple Google search.”

Indeed, one of those posts was from the Democratic Party fever swamp Think Progress. Imagine my surprise.

NY Times Muttonhead: Hey, Sorry for Calling Tea Partiers Terrorists

This clown obviously is worried about losing his job. Why else would he bother apologizing? Curious, though, while he's pretending to apologize, he's still using violent imagery to trash Republicans.

Once the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, they began to systemically undermine the Dodd-Frank reform law, pushing back against new, and mostly sensible, regulations designed to prevent another meltdown. The worst was the way Republicans took a hatchet to Elizabeth Warren as she tried to set up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Took a hatchet to Warren? Really?

Then he gets around to his mealy-mouthed so-called apology.

That anger reached its apex on Tuesday, when I wrote a column comparing the Tea Party Republicans to terrorists. The words I chose were intemperate and offensive to many, and I’ve been roundly criticized. I was a hypocrite, the critics said, for using such language when on other occasions I’ve called for a more civil politics. In the cool light of day, I agree with them. I apologize.

Offensive to many, yet cheered by the left.

The he reverts back to form.

Most frightening of all, the hand-to-hand combat over spending is going to resume shortly when Congress returns from the August recess, and its supercommittee will start to look for an additional $1.5 trillion in cuts. It is hard to see how the outcome of those negotiations will be any different from this last awful go-round. In all likelihood, they will inflict more damage to our battered economy.

Undoubtedly, I’ll write columns about those negotiations. But I won’t be calling anybody names. That I can promise.

He won't be calling them names, but hey, it's so downright frightening how they're inflicting so much damage to the economy.

Honestly, why bother apologizing to tea partiers when they're now so irrelevant, according to some juice-box Journolister?

NYT Writer Smears Middle America: "Dance of the Low-Sloping Foreheads"

Nice attitude, eh?

This genius' name is David Carr, and he apparently writes a column for the New York Times. An unbiased one, no doubt.

Based on the slope of his forehead, I'm guessing he's from...Minnesota.



Via Breitbart.

NY Times Columnist Charged In Domestic Dispute, Then Speaks at Domestic Violence Conference

He must be one of those domestic violence experts.

New York Times tech guru David Pogue and his wife have been charged with disorderly conduct following a domestic dispute Monday at their Westport home that police said turned physical.

Pogue, 48, and Jennifer Pogue, 47, were issued the summonses following the apparent altercation at their home on Woody Lane about 10:30 p.m. Monday, police said.

The Pogues are the parents of three children -- ages 13, 12 and 9 -- and the dispute apparently erupted when Jennifer Pogue paid a visit on a night that David Pogue had visitation rights with the children, police said.

An argument ensued, which Jennifer Pogue decided to record on her iPhone, police said. David Pogue contends that, during a struggle over the phone, "When he wouldn't let go, she bit his arm," said police Capt. Sam Arciola.

Jennifer Pogue, however, told police she was lying in bed reading a book when her husband took her phone and struck her in the head.

Police did not seize the phone for evidence, but the video was reviewed before officers departed. "The recording substantiated some of the claims," Arciola said.

David Pogue happened to be speaking Thursday at a conference at the Shelton Marriott to benefit a charity dedicated to domestic violence victims.

I guess due to the fact I pay so little attention to the Times, I can honestly say I've never heard of this guy.

The columnist was speaking at an event called the Technology Today Business Forum at the Courtyard by Marriott Hotel. He said donated his services for what he called a "good cause," as the event was held to raise money for FSW, a Bridgeport-based social services organization formerly known as Family Services Woodfield.

Included in the services the charity provides is support for women and families who are dealing with domestic violence.

This is the second time in as many months that police have responded to an incident involving Pogue.

After an out-of-town talk in April, Pogue returned to find that his car had been vandalized at the Greens Farms Railroad Station. According the personal blog of Dan Woog, a Westport News columnist, all of the tires, wheels and rims were swiped overnight from Pogue's Honda Fit left in the rail depot's parking lot. But the subcompact was still jacked up where the wheel thieves had left it.

Since 2000, Pogue has been the personal-technology columnist for the New York Times. The "State of the Art" column appears every Thursday on the front page of the Business section. He also writes a daily Times blog, "Pogue's Posts," authoring a weekly e-mail Times newsletter, "From the Desk of David Pogue," and shoots humorous web videos for the newspaper.

Via Tim Blair, who says charity begins at home.

NY Times Concerned Over bin Laden's Image Following Porn Discovery

The man's got an image to uphold, and recent findings inside in squalid compound have his former enablers at the New York Times fretting over his lasting legacy.

The enormous cache of computer files taken from Osama bin Laden’s compound contained a considerable quantity of pornographic videos, American officials said on Friday, adding a discordant note to the public image of the Islamist militant who long denounced the West for its lax sexual mores.

The most notorious terrorist in history is now fish food, and these schlubs still call him a militant. Good grief.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity about classified material, would not say whether there was evidence that Bin Laden or the other men living in the house had acquired or viewed the material.

The discovery of the pornography, first reported by Reuters, may not be surprising in a collection of five computers, 10 hard drives and dozens of thumb drives and CDs whose age and past ownership is not known.

But the disclosure could fuel accusations of hypocrisy against the founder of Al Qaeda, who was 54 and lived with three wives at the time of his death, and will be welcomed by counterterrorism officials because it could tarnish his legacy and erode the appeal of his brand of religious extremism.

I suspect right about now bin Laden's more concerned about things other than accusations of hypocrisy.

In a 2002 “letter to the American people,” Bin Laden denounced American culture for its exploitation of women’s bodies in dress, advertising and popular culture.

“Your nation exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools, calling upon customers to purchase them,” he wrote. “You plaster your naked daughters across billboards in order to sell a product without any shame. You have brainwashed your daughters into believing they are liberated by wearing revealing clothes, yet in reality all they have liberated is your sexual desire.”

No worse than any televangelist who's been caught with their pants down. You suppose the Times would be worried about the image of, say, Pat Robertson if he were caught with a huge porn stash?

We doubt it. But the most evil man on the planet? Well, they're worried about accusations of hypocrisy and his lasting public image.

Priorities.

Heh: NY Times Duped by The Onion

Good thing they employ layer upon layer of fact-checkers and editorial oversight.

A series of pictures last Sunday of covers of the magazine Tiger Beat, with an article about how the original teen-girl tabloid has remained virtually unchanged since its inception in 1965, erroneously included a parody cover, produced by the satiric newspaper The Onion, that featured a picture of President Obama.

For the so-called paper of record they run an amazing amount of correction. Here's another related to Obama.

An article on Page 30, about President Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, misstates the title of the book from which the article is adapted. It is “A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,” not “A Single Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother.”

Report: NY Times Photographer Sexually Assaulted by Khadafy Goons

A group of New York Times journalists were released in Libya Monday and a report today indicates a female photographer was sexually assaulted by Moammar Khadafy's thugs.

A female war photographer from the New York Times revealed tonight how she was repeatedly sexually assaulted during her nightmare hostage ordeal in Libya.

Lynsey Addario was one of four Times journalists have now been released after being held captive by pro-Gaddafi forces.

During their six-day detainment, the Americans were beaten and threatened with being decapitated and shot.

Miss Addario, a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer, gave a harrowing account of her brutal treatment at the hands of their Libyan captors in an interview given just hours after her release.

After she and her colleagues were hauled out of a car at a checkpoint near the eastern city of Ajdabiya, one of the Libyans punched her in the face and laughed at her.

‘Then I started crying and he was laughing more,’ she told the Times.

One man grabbed her breasts – the start of a pattern of sexual harassment she endured over the ensuing 48 hours.

‘There was a lot of groping,’ she said. ‘Every man who came in contact with us basically felt every inch of my body short of what was under my clothes.’

As she was being driven away from Ajdabiya, she said another of her captors stroked her head and told her repeatedly that she was going to be killed.

‘He was caressing my head in this sick way, this tender way, saying, "You’re going to die tonight. You’re going to die tonight",‘ she added.

Miss Addario was with Anthony Shadid, the paper’s Beirut bureau chief, photographer Tyler Hicks and reporter and videographer Stephen Farrell when they were seized while leaving the scene of fighting between rebels and Libyan government forces because they decided it had become too dangerous.

Their driver inadvertently drove into a checkpoint manned by troops loyal to the Libyan dictator.

‘I was yelling to the driver, "Keep driving! Don’t stop! Don’t stop!",' said Mr Hicks. ‘I knew that the consequences of being stopped would be very bad.’

As they were being forced out of their gold-coloured sedan, rebels opened fire sending them sprawling for safety.

‘You could see the bullets hitting the dirt,’ said Mr Shadid.

The soldiers forced them all to lie on the ground and they feared they were going to be murdered there and then.

‘I heard in Arabic, "Shoot them",’ said Mr Shadid. ‘And we all thought it was over.’ But then they heard another soldier say: ‘No, they’re Americans. We can’t shoot them.’

The fate of the car driver, Mohamed Shaglouf, is unknown.

Paper of Record Admits Cows Aren't Falling From Planes

Good thing the New York Times employs an army of editors and layer upon layer of fact-checkers. Otherwise they'd wind up being bamboozled and reporting that cows are falling from the sky.

Oh, wait a minute.

A correction from Sunday's New York Times:

"An article on Jan. 16 about drilling for oil off the coast of Angola erroneously reported a story about cows falling from planes, as an example of risks in any engineering endeavor. No cows, smuggled or otherwise, ever fell from a plane into a Japanese fishing rig. The story is an urban legend."

For some reason it took about a month for them to even make the correction.

New York Times: 'It is Our Aim to be Impartial in our Presentation of the News'

They must really believe this. I guess if you lie to yourself enough eventually you believe it.

The New York Times today offers what it calls the backstory on its publication of the stolen WikiLeaks documents. It includes the intriguing fact that the White House didn't try very hard to deter publication, but the report by executive editor Bill Keller mostly reads like house propaganda and a Pulitzer application.

There is a laugh-out-loud moment. It comes when Keller writes that "it is our aim to be impartial in our presentation of the news."

It's hard to imagine he believes that. Certainly nobody else does.

The upshot of Keller's piece, which appears in the magazine section and an e-book, is that you'll have to look elsewhere if you want truth or honest introspection. For that, I recommend "Gray Lady Down," a book that gives the backstory of what has gone wrong at the Times itself.

Author William McGowan has compiled a timely indictment of how the paper lost its way. He catalogs well-known mistakes and the cheerleading and other none-too-subtle ways it puts its thumb on the scales of key stories.

He shows how its news coverage of President Obama, gay marriage, immigration, the military, the Duke "rape" case, radicalized Muslims, the Ground Zero mosque, and the war on terror are riddled with omissions, distortions and biases.

McGowan blames "an insular group-think" for turning the paper "into a tattered symbol of liberal orthodoxy," adding, "How deeply compromised its principles have become are questions inextricably entwined with the Times' ideological commitments."

As someone forever grateful that the Times gave me my start, I read "Gray Lady Down" with anger and sadness. Great Times editors, led by the legendary Abe Rosenthal and Arthur Gelb, created a model of integrity and fairness for American newspapers.

But the golden age of standards is but a memory in today's Times. As a friend says, the paper is like a rebel from the 1960s that refuses to grow up.

Witness Keller's attempt to justify his ties to Julian Assange, the anti-American anarchist behind WikiLeaks. To convince readers he treated Assange like any other source, Keller repeats a reporter's churlish description of the cyber-outlaw: "He was alert but disheveled, like a bag lady walking in off the street, wearing a dingy, light-colored sport coat and cargo pants, dirty white shirt, beat-up sneakers and filthy white socks that collapsed around his ankles. He smelled as if he hadn't bathed in days."

But Keller is stuck with the fact that the Times was a partner with Assange and foreign newspapers in recklessly revealing American secrets about Iraq, Afghanistan and our diplomats around the globe. It negotiated both with the Obama administration and Assange. When the White House flagged materials it thought too dangerous to publish, the Times gave that information to WikiLeaks -- in effect, flagging it for someone eager to damage America.

Read the rest. Don't forget their endless series of leaks during the Bush 43 administration either. They're bend over to accommodate Obama but basically gave the finger to Bush every time they could.

Krugman Confesses: "I Don't Know Anything"

Three weeks ago, you may recall that Paul Krugman did a spectacular belly-flop into an empty swimming pool when he linked the shooting in Tucson to Sarah Palin's whackadoodle - nay, dangerous! - right-wing rhetoric, without a shred of evidence.

Today, he is uncharacteristically reluctant to even dip his toes in the water by commenting on a situation he says he knows nothing about: Egypt.

Translation: He's still trying to figure out how to implicate Palin in all this.

I don’t know anything, have no expertise, haven’t even ever looked at the economic situation. Hence, no posting. If there comes a point when I have something to say, I will.

Via Mediaite. Cross-posted.

Laugh of the Day: Obama to Press Centrist Agenda in His Address

Apparently the idiots at the New York Times are living under some strange delusion that Barack Obama is a centrist. Do they really believe this? Of course not. But they figure enough stupid people are still buying their nonsense.

President Obama will outline an agenda for “winning the future” in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, striking a theme of national unity and renewal as he stresses the need for government spending in key areas and an attack on the budget deficit.

Mr. Obama previewed the themes in a video e-mailed Saturday evening to supporters who had helped in his election campaign. But the video made plain that his speech would be geared more broadly toward the political center, to independent voters and business owners and executives alienated by the expansion of government and the partisan legislative fights of the past two years.

“My No. 1 focus,” he said, “is going to be making sure that we are competitive, and we are creating jobs not just now but well into the future.”

“These are big challenges that are in front of us,” Mr. Obama also said in the video, sent to members of Organizing for America, his network of supporters from the 2008 campaign. “But we’re up to it, as long as we come together as a people — Republicans, Democrats, independents — as long as we focus on what binds us together as a people, as long as we’re willing to find common ground even as we’re having some very vigorous debates.”

The annual address on Tuesday, with much of the nation watching, will pull together themes suggested by Mr. Obama over the past two months as he has moved rapidly since the midterm elections to retool his presidency.

In his speeches, policy choices and personnel appointments, Mr. Obama has signaled that after two years in which his response to the economic crisis and his push for passage of the health care bill defined him to many voters as a big-government liberal, he is seeking to recast himself as a more business-friendly, pragmatic progressive.

Memo to the Times: So-called "progressives" aren't centrists. They're leftwingers. But you already know that.

Sane folks aren't buying this claptrap.

How can a president subtly distance himself from the macabre and revolting behavior of his left-wing base while simultaneously editorializing on unhinged invective in general (e.g., without an embarrassing extreme, there is no occasion to call for moderation from others)?

Why did five days of presidential silence follow the shootings (so unlike instant editorializing about the Mutallab and Hasan incidents), when the likes of Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, Andrew Sullivan, Sheriff Dupnik, and the New York Times rushed in to scavenge political capital amid the carnage? All that might have been bridled with a brief word or two from the White House, a brief Sister Souljah moment admonition to the New York Times to cool it for a while. We know that would have worked, because the Times within hours after the successful Obama speech was calling to cool what it had helped arouse, apparently realizing that its demonization and its refutation of demonization hand-in-glove were politically useful.

And why not some therapeutic confessional of past (and in many cases quite recent) presidential culpability (e.g., the president’s own metaphorical use of knives, guns, enemies, punishing, kicking ass, relegation to backseat, get angry, getting in their face, hostage takers, trigger fingers, tearing up)?

Newsflash: Peter King Doesn't Like the New York Times

Say what you will about New York's Peter King, and I've had my disagreements with him in the past. But when it comes to his contempt for the New York Times, he may even have me beat. The thumbsuckers from the Old Grey Hag whimpered the other day about his upcoming hearing on the growing Islamist threat from withing, and today he fired back with both barrels. And that's putting it mildly.

“The New York Times is just basically being a mouthpiece for political correctness,” King said, later adding: “These are very legitimate hearings.”

In many ways, King may prove to be a major problem for the Obama administration in the new Congress.

Since Republicans won the House in November, the media spotlight has mainly focused on one incoming committee chairman: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who will head the House Oversight panel.

But the burly New York Republican could be just as big a thorn in the White House’s side.

King, a fiery Irishman known for an independent streak, has repeatedly blasted the administration for its attempt to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and try terrorism suspects in civilian courts.

Not one to mince words, King denounced John Brennan, chief counterterrorism adviser to the White House, for his involvement in homeland-security issues. King accused Brennan of intentionally shutting Congress out of critical briefings on terrorist attacks.

King has every right to challenge Obama and his lackeys. In case the Times has forgotten already, the GOP now controls the House and would be neglecting the desires of millions of Americans. If they don't like it, then too damn bad.

While some Democrats bristle at his King’s criticism of Obama’s national-security policies, it will be difficult to cast him as an ideologue who is just interested in scoring political points.

Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch (D) on Tuesday took a swing at The New York Times on behalf of King for a Sunday editorial denouncing his plans to hold a hearing on the radicalization of U.S. Muslims and homegrown terrorism.

The scathing editorial stated that King needed to take his anti-Muslim criticism down a notch if he wants to be taken seriously as the Homeland Security chairman.

King’s proposal to hold hearings on the issue has brought a rash of criticism from those who argue it could turn into a McCarthy-esque witch-hunt, fueling distrust of the government among Muslim citizens.

In its editorial, the Times wrote that King’s “sweeping slur on Muslim citizens is unacceptable.” It also accused him of too much “blather” and “bluster” on a host of national-security issues.

King quickly punched back.

“I’m certainly not going to take any political advice or direction from The New York Times,” King told The Hill. “I have more contempt for The New York Times than anything or anyone I can think of.”

He added, “People follow what I say. I’m outspoken, but I can back up everything I say. I am what I am and people seem to like it and I’m at peace with myself.”

Good for him. He's sure to receive an onslaught of criticism from the media and those terror co-conspirators from CAIR, but so be it. He'd receive more from the right if he were to fold like a cheap camera under the criticism. If Obama and company are afraid to testify it shows they've got something to hide. And when you've got the bedwetters playing the tired McCarthy card then you know you're on the right track.

Let the hearings begin.

NY Times: Club Gitmo a Violation of International Law Under Bush; Under Obama: 'A Step Toward Fairness'

Someone needs to send a team of chiropractors over to the New York Times. After bending over backwards and contorting themselves into pretzels there's going to be a lot of spinal damage. This rationale and excuse-making for Barack Obama is astonishing.

This country continues to pay a high price in both security and reputation for the Bush administration’s many violations of international law at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. After more than a year of review, the Obama administration is preparing an executive order intended to resolve the situation of four dozen prisoners in the prison there who are caught in a legal limbo: they cannot be freed because they are considered a potentially serious terrorist threat, and they cannot be tried because the evidence against them is classified or was improperly obtained, often through torture.

The proposed order could give these prisoners a form of legal representation and a system to review their cases. It would not remove the tarnish to the American justice system of holding prisoners without trial. But it could represent a significant step forward in dealing with these cases and possibly reducing their number.

The order, which could be signed by the president as early as next month, would require periodic review of each prisoner’s case by a kind of parole board drawn from agencies throughout the executive branch and not just the military.

So now after dithering for two years, Obama's accomplished nothing toward his declared goal of closing down Club Gitmo and will leave these monsters in limbo. Yet according to the Times, it's the fault of the Pelosi Congress or something.

President Obama’s plan to close Guantánamo — thwarted by Congress — had always recognized that there would be a small core of prisoners who could not be tried because of the nature of the evidence against them or the illegal way that evidence was obtained.

Thwarted by Congress? Huh? They fail to explain how Congress thwarted anything, and Obama could have issued an executive order two years ago to close it, yet he lacked the courage to do so. But now, in keeping with all the sugar-plum fantasies of the NY Times editorial board, Obama's plan to keep the joint open is, ahem, fairness.

To continue with military operations, the president will probably have to swallow his objections and sign the bill. Over the next year, he must work harder to persuade Congress not to interfere with the work of bringing fairness to the justice system at Guantánamo. As Mr. Obama rightly argued when discussing the detentions last week, “We have these core ideals that we observe — even when it’s hard.”

That's right. Our national security be damned. We must have fairness in dealing with wanton killers.

Naturally, they ignore the tremendous recidivism rate of freed Club Gitmo guests. I guess that doesn't help their argument for fairness.

H/T Spitfire Murphy.

'Maybe The New York Times has Forgotten, but New York Can Still Be a Dangerous Town for Children of Wealthy People'

Maybe if Pinch Sulzberger and Bill Keller had photos of their children printed in another newspaper they'd realize the damage they've done? But do they care? Ha! These people revel in exposing national security secrets, so why would they give a rat's ass about endangering some kid?

The Grey Lady's got him seeing red.

A media exec is seething over the nightmare created when his TV-reporter ex-wife and her new "soul mate" aired the former couple's dirty laundry in the wedding pages of The New York Times.

Bob Ennis -- whose ex-wife, former WNBC/Channel 4 reporter Carol Anne Riddell, gushed to the Times about how she longed for her new husband while she was still married -- slammed the write-up as a "choreographed, self-serving piece of revisionist history" that will hurt both couples' children.

"You could easily try to brush this off as . . . a self-serving act by a couple of narcissistic people," Ennis fumed to a Forbes reporter "except for the fact that there are lots of children involved."

"These kids watch TV, they read newspapers a little bit and certainly they surf the Internet," Ennis said.

Ennis, who was married to Riddell for 13 years, was even more incensed about a picture of their 7-year-old daughter appearing along with Sunday's story.

"Maybe The New York Times has forgotten, but New York can still be a dangerous town for children of wealthy people," he said.

While Times wedding stories are usually read and forgotten by the end of brunch, the piece about how Riddell met her new husband, John Partilla, in 2006 at their children's Upper West Side pre-school shocked readers.

"Why does the Times glorify home-wrecking?" one commenter wrote on the paper's Web site.

Army of Fact-checkers and Layers of Editorial Oversight Missing in Action at NYT

When you can't get basic facts right in a story, don't wag your finger at those lowly bloggers out there.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: December 12, 2010

An earlier version of this article incorrectly reported that Ann Richards beat George Bush in 1990. She actually beat Clayton Williams that year. The article also incorrectly left the impression that Earl Weaver, the former Baltimore Orioles manager, is dead.

That's quite an impression the readers were left with considering Earl Weaver is very much alive. Here's how the original appeared:

Oops.

H/T Baltimore Sports Report, via Twitter.

CBS/NYT Poll Spells Almost Certain Doom for Democrats

Forget all that nonsense Democrats have been been peddling about some surge in interest for their candidates in the midterms. If this CBS/New York Times poll is any indication they're about to be swept away in a historic tsunami.

Critical parts of the coalition that delivered President Obama to the White House in 2008 and gave Democrats control of Congress in 2006 are switching their allegiance to the Republicans in the final phase of the midterm Congressional elections, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Republicans have wiped out the advantage held by Democrats in recent election cycles among women, Catholics, less affluent Americans and independents; all of those groups broke for Mr. Obama in 2008 and for congressional Democrats when they grabbed both chambers from the Republicans four years ago, according to exit polls.

The poll found that a greater proportion of women would choose Republicans over Democrats in House races than at any time since exit polls began tracking the breakdown in 1982.

So Obama and the Democrats have lost women, Catholics, the less affluent and independents. What's he got left other than kook fringe bloggers?

The poll does not measure the strength of individual candidates in specific districts, where indeterminate factors like voter turnout and even weather can affect Election Day results. And, taken nationally Thursday through Tuesday with interviews of 1,173 adults, the poll did not ask about United States Senate contests, as 14 states do not have Senate races this year (The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points).

But it does offer a clear indication of party strength at the end of what has been a particularly intense and hard-fought mid-term election season with more bad news than good for Mr. Obama and his party.

Overall, 46 percent of likely voters said they would vote for Republicans and 40 percent said they would support Democrats.

A higher percentage of Americans continue to have a more favorable opinion of the Democratic Party than of the Republican Party, with 46 percent favoring Democrats and 41 favoring Republicans. But the Republicans’ current favorability rating in The New York Times/CBS poll reflects its highest level since September, 2006.

However, disapproval of Congress remains near its highest level in the history of The Times/CBS poll – 76 percent of respondents disapproved, 14 percent approved and 10 percent expressed no opinion.

Say farewell, Queen Pelosi.

The poll results are here. Worth noting, and the Democrats better take notice or they'll get wiped out in 2012 as well, is by 55-36% people want smaller government. A scant 11% think the economy is better since Obama took office, 53% don't think Obama has a plan to create jobs.

Naturally, considering this is a media poll, it's stacked against Republicans, which leads us to believe things may be even worse next Tuesday than anyone expects. Only 28% of those polled identify themselves as Republicans, with 37% Democrats and 31% independents. So you have 68% not identifying themselves as Republican yet they're heavily favored on Tuesday. Self-identified liberals and moderates make up 56% of those polled, with 38% conservative; again, Democrats should be very worried based on the makeup of those polled.

Update: According to Gallup it looks even worse.

Gallup's recent tracking of the generic ballot for Congress has shown the Republicans with substantial leads over the Democrats among likely voters, in part because the underlying registered voter population leans Republican in its vote choice. Compared with previous elections, that tilt is an extraordinary positioning for the Republicans, who typically do no better than tie the Democrats among registered voters. The GOP's position is further enhanced by the generally strong proclivity of Republicans to turn out to vote, which appears to be even greater than usual this year.

Gallup keeps pointing toward a 40% turnout compared with presidential elections. I suspect that number will be much greater.

'I See That As a Real Insensitivity Towards … Towards Catholics'

Once again the bigots at the New York Times reveal themselves.

He leads 2.5 million Catholics, and on Thursday night Timothy Dolan was using his position to take on a media giant.

The archbishop is angry at the New York Times, and he’s not being shy about showing it.

Dolan sat down with CBS 2’s Sean Hennessey for an exclusive one-on-one interview.

Once again, Dolan and the New York Times are at odds.

“I see that as a real insensitivity towards … towards Catholics,” Dolan said.

Archbishop Dolan is blasting the paper for what he calls a double standard when it comes to race, religion, and the treatment of Catholics. Specifically, an exhibit that includes a severely critical image of Cardinal O’Connor and a picture of a nun.

“In a gaudy, obnoxious, suggestive pose,” Dolan said.

With the paper’s positive review of the play about nuns in movies.

“Why give publicity to that? You would never give publicity to somebody who did that to an Islamic revered figure or to Jesse Jackson. They just would never think of doing that,” Dolan said.

Then there’s an exhibit by the group ACT-UP and an image of a beloved Cardinal. Even though the Times review never mentions the picture, Dolan is upset with the recommendation to go see an exhibit he calls offensive to Catholics.

“To have a poster there and say, oh look, in this enlightened exhibit that everybody ought to see, a picture of Cardinal O’Connor comparing him to a condom and calling him a scumbag. They wouldn’t get away with that with any other community,” Dolan said.

The Times said, “While Archbishop Dolan may not like the play or the art under consideration, The Times’ job is to report on and review such cultural events, even if some may disagree with the content of the art work.”

Back where the play got out, offensiveness, like beauty was in the eyes of the beholder.

“There was something there that was offensive to everybody, of any religion,” one person said.

“Nobody took it seriously,” another person added.

But Dolan is taking it seriously, saying he’s not above humor or criticism, he just wants an equal playing field from one of the most respected papers in the country.

“If they’re going to say, ‘Oh no, we do that all the time,’ I’m going to say, show me when you do it to the Islamic community, to the Jewish community, to the African-American community, to the gay community. Show me when you do it there. They don’t do it because they know that’s out of bounds,” Dolan said.

Of course they don't to it to anyone else. Because they're cowards.

As to to printing cartoons goofing on Mohammed, you can hardly even find a mention of that so-called controversy, never mind the actual cartoons themselves.

Other publishers, including The New York Times, chose not to print the cartoons or images of Muhammad when the controversy erupted worldwide in February 2006.

Since the Times says their "job is to report on and review such cultural events," I can't wait until they do a review of an exhibit showing critical images of Mohammed, though I won't hold my breath.

Thanks to Hot Air for the link.

Wonderful: NY Times Planning Another Hit Piece on Boehner

They already brought us the earth-shattering news that future House Speaker John Boehner actually knows Washington lobbyists, a stunning development in political circles considering he lives and works in Washington. Now the fair and impartial arbiters of truthiness at the New York Times plan another smear attack on Boehner set for later in October so they can try and influence the midterm elections.

They have no idea how badly this will backfire with an already angry public and likely will lead to even more defeats for Democrats in tight races. Aren't these the same people who whine about "negative campaigning" and the "politics of personal destruction" every election cycle? Even worse, they're hopping into bed with the discredited smear merchants from Daily Kos.

Pathetic.

The heat is on Republican leader John Boehner.

Liberal media outlets are trying to smear the highest-ranking Republican in the House just weeks before the midterm elections with a deal-breaking scandal before he has a chance to take the speaker's chair from Nancy Pelosi.

A blogger from liberal Web site The Daily Kos pierced through Boehner's security detail at yesterday's unveiling of his leadership policy "Pledge to America" to ask if he was sleeping with a lobbyist from the Printing Industries of America.

The congressman ignored the pesky blogger with a flip camera and kept moving to his fleet of black Suburbans.

The lobbyist who was named in the confrontation and then was contacted by he Daily Kos blogger Lisbeth Lyons denied the accusations. "As you can imagine, I was stunned by such a question," Lyons said. "I found it to be highly insulting, particularly as a female political professional, as well as unfounded. Beyond that, I have no further comment on the matter."

Insiders on Capitol Hill are buzzing about an upcoming New York Times exposé that will detail an alleged Boehner affair. Sources say the Times is looking for the right time to drop the story in October to sway the election, similar to how the Times reported during the 2008 presidential campaign on an alleged John McCain affair that supposedly had taken place many years before and that was flatly denied by the woman in question.

"Catching Boehner with a mistress is the only way to destroy him politically before the election," a source said.

If the Times wants to play games I have two words for them: Vera Baker.

Guess Who Took Twice as Much Lobbyist Cash as Boehner?

You'll never guess. Can't wait for the New York Times hit team to unveil their investigation of Queen Nancy.

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

But did you know:

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

Heck, it's been almost two years and has the Times even mentioned Schumer was up to his eyeballs in Bernie Madoff cash?

First There was Funemployment; Now It's a 'Recession With Benefits'

Last summer we were treated to the media spin of spiraling job losses as funemployment. Now the left is pulling out all the stops to try to convince you that the dreadful economy is somehow a good thing. Here is the New York Times actually saying that the high unemployment rate is a positive because those who still have jobs are seeing a real wage increase.

Get a load of this pile of horsecrap:For Those With Jobs, a Recession With Benefits

But since this recent recession began in December 2007, real average hourly pay has risen nearly 5 percent. Some employers, especially state and local governments, have cut wages. But many more employers have continued to increase pay.

Something similar happened during the Great Depression, notes Bruce Judson of the Yale School of Management. Falling prices meant that workers who held their jobs received a surprisingly strong effective pay raise.

This time around, nominal wages — the numbers people see in their paychecks — have risen throughout the slump, as companies have passed along some of the impressive productivity to their (remaining) workers. Meanwhile, inflation has been almost non-existent, except for parts of last year, when real wages did briefly fall.

Obviously, real wages could begin falling again if inflation picks up or more employers cut pay. And many workers are already struggling with big debts and diminished 401(k) accounts. Still, the contrast is pretty stark. The typical jobless person has been out of work six months. The typical worker has received a raise.

Overall real income has dropped significantly during this deep recession, families have gone bankrupt, lost their homes, lost their retirement savings in many cases, and yet the New York Times is cheering since some folks who still have their jobs have gotten raises. And that the falling prices gives them an
effective pay raise.

What's next, the New York Times saying that all the empty houses are a good thing because it cuts down on traffic for everyone else in the neighborhood? Or how about an article saying that folks being broke and unable buy food is a good thing because then the grocery store lines are shorter for the rest?

These people have no shame, they will tout anything in the effort to shill for their political agenda.

I know people who have lost jobs two or three times in the past several years. I know others who have been out of work for 99 months straight or more. Go tell them that the high unemployment is a good thing.

And notice, nowhere in the article does the New York Times mention Obama's failed economic policies. Nowhere.

Despicable.