"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men
from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
(Thomas Jefferson)

Monday, May 9, 2011

NY Times goes after Obama on Campaign Finance -- Real Target the Republican Groups

First thought when I read this editorial from the NY Times was what happened to the Times? Then I clicked on the link and read the whole editorial -- some parts of it I couldn't believe they wrote in good conscience. For example:

A political system built on secret, laundered money will inevitably lead toward an increased culture of influence and corruption. Democrats would attract more support as a principled party that refused to follow the Republicans down that dark alley.

The Democrats, home of ACORN and SEIU voter fraud, are principled? That gave a laugh to start the morning. Voter fraud was rampant in 2008 led by ACORN with help from the SEIU, illegals were encouraged to register and vote Democrat, and in the 2008 Democrat primary, the Times would find even more fraud as Obama stole the election from Hillary Clinton. Guess the NY Times never bothered to watch the tapes of voter intimidation during the Democrat primary to keep Hillary voters from casting their vote. The Obama thugs stole the caucus system votes and why you saw Hillary winning the popular vote but had trouble in the caucus system where Obama had decided it was the easiest to fraud.

Here is another gem from the NY Times:

It is true that a group founded by the Republican strategist Karl Rove has said it would raise $120 million for 2012, and another set up by the Koch brothers, conservative activists and industrialists, will raise at least $88 million. But Mr. Obama managed to raise the staggering sum of $750 million in 2008. And though he abandoned the public finance system to do it — possibly damaging it permanently — he at least disclosed all of his donors.

Read that carefully -- the NY Times is saying that Obama disclosed all his donors. Do they mean the ones that donated after security was turned off so that prepaid cards by the big donors could be used by small donor ACORN, SEIU members, and others or do they mean the overseas donations that with security turned off were able to come into Obama campaign war chest without tracking? How do they think he raised so much money? Maybe the NY Times thinks that money grew on trees in Obama's backyard.

Once you get passed the initial going after Obama who did change the way campaigns are financed after he double crossed McCain, you find it is nothing more than bashing Republicans Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers for using the same legal way to fund the 2010 campaign.

Why is the NY Times shocked that Obama will do whatever it takes to win no matter what he said in the past -- in fact whatever comes out of his mouth is subject to change as we have witnessed in the last week. He sat intently in the White House released photo watching the scene unfold in Bin Laden's hideout when there was no video. He didn't quit there, the man who they called in off the golf course when the mission was underway now takes full credit and said he was very tense for that 25 minutes. It sure makes you tense watching a mission you didn't order while watching a blank screen for the photo op.

Did the NY Times expect any less of Obama than NO transparency. For the entire time in office there has been no transparency starting with the CZARS along with having spin and lies as the standard for this Administration. Anything to make Obama look good is what seems to be the name of the game for the WH Staff and Obama news organizations like the NY Times.

Noted in the article that the Times believe all his has do to is tell these Democrats to stop with the fundraising and it will happen. Obama would never tell them to stop. In fact, we would bet this came out of his right hand person Valerie Jarrett. Everything he does is with an eye toward his political future. With this news, guess we might be willing to concede that the Soros huge amount money that funded a lot of Obama's campaign in 2004 for Senate and 2008 for President is off the table this time. Maybe George Soros isn't any happier with losing money on investments then most Americans.

NY Times slams Obama for turning blind eye to Dem outside group

By: Philip Klein 05/08/11 4:41 PM
Senior editorial writer Follow Him @Philipaklein

Last week, I reported that two former top aides in the Obama administration were forming an outside group to support Democrats, enabling them to raise the same sort of secret money that Obama once decried as a "threat to democracy." In an editorial today, the New York Times blasts Obama for not putting the kibosh on the group, Priorities USA, founded by Bill Burton, who served as deputy press secretary, and Sean Sweeney, who worked as Rahm Emanuel's chief of staff when Emanuel was working in the White House.

The Times editorializes:

If the president stood up and publicly told Mr. Burton to end his effort, that would probably be the end of it. But he has not done so. The White House is clearly worried it will have trouble collecting big checks from Wall Street and other business interests for the re-election campaign, and has decided the political end justifies the unsavory means. At the very least, he and other Democratic leaders could demand that the Priorities group raise its money through an affiliate, Priorities USA Action, which can collect unlimited funds but must disclose its donors.

A political system built on secret, laundered money will inevitably lead toward an increased culture of influence and corruption. Democrats would attract more support as a principled party that refused to follow the Republicans down that dark alley.

Read more at the Washington Examiner.com

The more we think about it, the more we are coming to believe that this NY Times editorial which slams Obama, calls the Democrats principled, and then goes after Republicans is going to be the meme for the Obama media in this 2012 Presidential campaign.

No comments: