RNC Bias for Romney? Evidence Says YES!

Did you know that the Republican primary is over?  Neither does anyone I know but that has not stopped the RNC from joining with the Romney campaign to raise money for Romney we assume for the general election but things are getting so strange who knows.

The #2 in the House, Eric Cantor, just gave $25,000 to a PAC looking to defeat Republican and Democrat incumbents.  Why?  But then leadership would like that same answer as they were caught off guard.  Sure makes the rumors seem more real that Cantor has been undermining other members of leadership and is not a team player.  The GOP is looking like the Stupid Party more and more as this election progresses.

The RNC declares they have not been biased like anyone believes them but this little gem they have filed the paperwork to raise money for Romney just reinforces what so many of us have thought about the RNC having a different set of rules for Romney and for everyone else.  The current chair is not making friends but then he doesn't seem to care as long as Romney gets the nomination.

Burns & Haberman
Romney camp and RNC make it official, moneywise 

By MAGGIE HABERMAN |
4/7/12 3:36 PM EDT 

POLITICO's Dave Levinthal reports:

As expected, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee have officially filed paperwork to form a joint fundraising committee, Federal Election Commission records from today show.

Formally dubbed Romney Victory, Inc., the joint fundraising committee will also include the Idaho Republican Party, Oklahoma Leadership Council, Vermont Republican Federal Election Committee and the Massachusetts Republican State Congressional Committee as participants, filings show.

Keith A. Davis of Alexandria, Va.-based political accounting firm Huckaby Davis Lisker will serve as treasurer.

See the filing here.

Joint fundraising committees may raise money on behalf of any or all of its member committees and distribute contributions to them at its discretion, so long as the contributions stay within federal campaign finance limits.

It has been on this site for months that Rove is in the tank for Romney -- that didn't take a math genius to add 2+2 =4 to figure out Rove was for Romney.  Some of us were well aware that he got Romney to endorse Kay Bailey against Rick Perry for Governor in 2010.  Perry won in a 3-way race without a run-off which shows that Rove and Bush 41 through Kay Bailey was more popular then she is in real life.  They must have used the same rose colored glasses to convince themselves that Romney is more popular then he is.  Anywhere from 65 to 70% of voters in most states vote against Romney.  He is not a likable candidate but is as stiff as a board.  His obvious dislike for being around the middle class has become legendary.  Mr. Etch A Sketch has as little gravitas as any candidate I can remember running as the Republican for President.  Had to laugh when the powers at be say he needs to run to the center -- that would actually make him more conservative then his true beliefs which are not conservative.

Welcome to the real world where more and more media members have figured it out.  The RNC Chair and Rove are right in the thick of pushing Romney.

Is Mitt Romney winning the Karl Rove primary? 

By KEACH HAGEY and KENNETH P. VOGEL | 3/30/12 12:33 PM EDT 

As a political analyst on Fox News, Karl Rove is often asked to play the role of hypothetical adviser to various GOP candidates. And no matter how hard Sean Hannity teasingly tries to get him to admit who he supports, he refuses to endorse one. When he riffs about what a “terrific speech” that Mitt Romney made in November, he’ll make sure to interject, “I’m not here to make his case.” 

But it’s hard to miss, among all of Rove’s Fox commentary and Wall Street Journal columns, that he seems to favor one candidate over the others. Over the last year, Rove has used these powerful media platforms to systematically undercut every rising Romney challenger in succession while lauding Romney’s victories as “historic.” The pattern has gotten under the skin of the supporters of Romney’s challengers, who argue that Rove has more ties to Romney and his super PAC than he is disclosing to his media audiences, and thus has no business assessing the Republican primary race as a purportedly independent analyst. 

Excerpt:  Read more:  Politico

This is one of my favorite articles in a long time about the bias of the RNC.  Did the members of the RNC think they could change rules that would favor Romney and not have people question if they were in the tank for him.  It has gotten more obvious all the time that Priebus is in the hip pocket of Karl Rove and the elitist Republicans for Romney for some time.  This has not been an honest primary season starting with all the debates by liberal moderators.   Trying to say it is conspiracy theory is a bad joke and tries to make those of us who believe the bias look like nutcases.  Not working, conservatives are flat out mad and will not be silenced.  RNC gets some conservative leaders to say Romney is okay expecting everyone to follow along and support Romney but conservatives for the most part are not little lemmings.  The very idea that Romney went to South Carolina Governor Haley to see how to deal with conservative women is a bad joke.  Most of us don't have the same values as Haley to be kind.

Now the RNC refuses to acknowledge that Florida and Arizona should not have been winner take all.  How can any of us believe one word that comes out of the RNC.  We have missing ballot boxes, dead people voting, people voting in two states once again, keeping caucus goers from going to caucus', taking forever to count caucus ballots, etc.  Took weeks for Iowa to finally declare Santorum the winner after the missing ballot boxes that were never found.  Then the RNC tells states that vote before 1 April they have to proportion but that doesn't apply to Florida and Arizona.  Crooked primary and most of us know it.  Also the primary with the nastiest people demanding that you quit supporting your candidate and support Romney.

Where is it written in stone that any of us have to vote for Romney ever?  One person told me that he wants to make sure he can continue to drink Coke, Tea, Coffee, and Alcohol so he is not voting for Romney who thinks will get the FDA to find something wrong since the Mormon Church doesn't recognize those beverages.  Is the rumor true that the Convention is going to be alcohol and caffeine free?  That I want to see.   Some people only go to the convention to have fun.  I will take John McCain and his people any day of the week at a Convention versus Romney's.

Critics say RNC was in tank for Mitt Romney

By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 4/6/12 4:27 AM EDT Updated: 4/6/12 3:17 PM EDT 

The Republican National Committee was supposed to play the part of umpire in the GOP presidential primary, but some Republicans are grumbling that the committee wasn’t just calling balls and strikes. 

Critics, including supporters of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich and even neutral Republicans, argue that the national party took steps that helped tilt the contest toward Mitt Romney — an allegation that the RNC rejects but is taking very seriously. 

The list of specific grievances ranges from issues that even the party acknowledges are legitimate to those that they dismiss as desperate fixations from Romney’s flailing rivals. 

For example, the committee agrees that some states that went for Romney jumped the line in the primary schedule, a violation of party rules. But RNC defenders shrug off other complaints, that they undercut Santorum and Gingrich by formatting a delegate tracking list to pad Romney’s tally, by forming a fundraising alliance this week with Romney and by highlighting a rule that would block an unlikely path to the nomination for Gingrich. 

And it’s possible there will be other clashes in the coming weeks, with the RNC signaling Thursday its opposition to a push by Santorum backers in Texas to alter the rules surrounding that state’s May 29 primary to help the former Pennsylvania senator.

Critics of the RNC’s handling of the primary are so sensitive to signs that the committee may be pulling for Romney that they’ve even detected evidence of favoritism in the staff ties between his campaign and the RNC — though some concede such speculation veers more toward conspiracy theory than legitimate concern. 

Still, taken together, the perception that the primary wasn’t a fair fight could damage the party’s standing with the big donors and grass-roots activists it needs to rally this fall to defeat President Barack Obama. And if Obama wins reelection, that angst could create problems for the RNC and particularly for its chairman, Reince Priebus. 

“The chatter is that the fix is in, and that’s created a great deal of consternation,” said Michael Steele, Priebus’s predecessor as RNC chairman. 

Steele said he’s been approached “very quietly” by about ten of the RNC’s elected members who expressed misgivings “about the influence that the Romney campaign seems to have in dictating the terms of what the RNC is going to do and how it is going to follow the rules.” 

A source with a rival GOP campaign said supportive RNC members have raised concerns about a pro-Romney bias within the committee’s full-time leadership, and suggested they were dissatisfied with Priebus’s stewardship. 

The RNC defended its neutrality in the race, with spokesman Sean Spicer explaining, “We followed the rules exactly as laid out,” and questioning Steele’s credibility to comment on RNC affairs given “the state of disaster Mr. Steele left the RNC in.” 

The handful of 168 members interviewed for this story all rejected the idea that there was a concerted effort to favor Romney — and one even emailed the next day after talking with Spicer to more assertively defend the RNC. 

However, some did acknowledge that individual RNC moves seemed to benefit Romney, conceding that those decisions could be fueling the perception that the national party had its thumb on the scale.

“I would like to discourage the public from believing that there’s been monkey business going on that’s giving Mitt Romney any kind of an advantage,” said Phyllis Woods, an RNC committeewoman from New Hampshire. Woods, who didn’t endorse in her state’s first-in-the-nation primary, said she’s “concerned that there may be some perception that the RNC or maybe even some state parties anoint candidates.” 

But she asserted that’s not the RNC’s fault. “It’s just part of the culture right now that there is a mistrust of the establishment.” 

That mistrust is justified, said supporters of Santorum and Gingrich. They complain that the RNC’s interpretation of rules padded Romney’s delegate lead and could stymie Gingrich’s attempt to compete in a brokered convention in Tampa, Fla., this summer — the increasingly far-fetched scenario that the former House speaker contends is his route to the nomination.
“It’s probably not coincidence” that both interpretations favor Romney, asserted former Pennsylvania congressman Bob Walker, a top Gingrich campaign adviser. “But the fact is that we’ve known all the way along in our campaign that we are faced with an establishment that has made their decision.” 

Gingrich’s allies lashed at Priebus late last month after he suggested in an interview on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown” that “an important rule” of the RNC could bar Gingrich from having his name presented as a candidate at the convention. 

The rule states that candidates have to “demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates” from “five or more states prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.”
Priebus explained “when these candidates are adding up their delegates … they had better make sure they at least have a plurality of five states to make these things happen.” 

Gingrich — both at the time and still — has won only two states’ primaries, but his supporters contend that he could cobble together pluralities of delegates even without winning additional contests by wooing uncommitted delegates from states that have already voted. 

When Priebus cited the rule in the context of Gingrich’s campaign, it “was disturbing to me, and I think he’s wrong about it,” said Rick Tyler, a former close Gingrich aide now running a super PAC devoted to the former House speaker. The super PAC, Winning Our Future, is “doing some things on the delegate front,” Tyler said, asserting Priebus failed to take into account Gingrich’s efforts to court uncommitted delegates. “We’re one delegate behind in Mississippi. You don’t think we can get one delegate to say they’ll support Newt?” 

The Gingrich and Santorum campaigns found common cause in challenging the RNC’s handling of the allocation of delegates from Arizona and Florida — both of which violated party rules by holding their primaries before this month. 

The rules — which were approved during Steele’s tenure in an effort to extend the primary to give voters in more states a chance to weigh in — stipulate that states that hold nominating contests prior to April 1 are required to allocate their delegates proportionally. But Arizona and Florida approved plans allocating all their delegates to the winner of their primaries and, in both cases, that ended up being Romney. 

While the campaigns have indicated they intend to challenge the winner-take-all delegate allocations at the convention, the RNC’s delegate tracking list continues to count all 29 delegates from Arizona and all 50 from Florida in Romney’s column. 

Excerpt:  Read more:  Politico 

Why would the RNC have someone speak from New Hampshire to defend the RNC.  It is noted that none of the Committee from Middle America are speaking.  It is the Romney group giving the comments.  Then they wonder why we don't believe them because it is the nature of people today.  Shame on on for wanting fair primaries not stacked to favor Romney.  Frankly, I wouldn't believe the RNC now if they told me the sky was blue, I would have to go check.

Romney is at it again, getting ready to clobber Santorum in his home state to get him out of the race.  Romney has used his Super PAC and money to make sure he won this primary by trashing other Republicans but the one time independent/democrat seems more in tune with the 'scorched earth' of the Democrats then the Reagan type campaigns.  That should not be surprising since Romney NEVER supported Reagan.

Rumor had Romney pulling back on negative advertising but looks like that was premature.  Are those people who supported Romney after they were assured there would be no more 'scorched earth' going to continue to support Romney or is it going to be lackluster support?

Apr 7, 2012 1:34pm
Mitt Romney Plans Multi-Million Dollar Pennsylvania Ad Buy

ABC News’ Michael Falcone reports: 

In an attempt to eject Rick Santorum from the presidential race by force, Mitt Romney’s campaign will unveil a nearly $2 million television ad buy on the Pennsylvania airwaves beginning on Monday. 

According to sources tracking TV ad spending the buy, totaling $1.9 million, is widespread, hitting media markets from Philadelphia to Erie between April 9 and April 22 — two days before the state’s April 24 primary. 

(The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s Salena Zito reported that the buy could grow even larger — eventually ballooning to nearly $3 million.) 

Rick Santorum has already made clear that “we have to win” Pennsylvania and Romney predicted this week that Santorum, who served the state in the House and Senate, is “obviously going to do well in Pennsylvania.” A loss in the Keystone State would be exactly the knock-out blow the Romney campaign is seeking to finally shut the door on the GOP primary. 

Excerpt:  Read More at ABC

Media Reality Check. “By 20-to-1, Nets Apply Ideological Labels to Republicans Over Democratic Presidential Candidates

The truth comes out which a lot of us have long suspected.  The mainstream media doesn't like to label Democrats liberals because they either know that label won't fly well in most of America or it would be an acknowledgement that they have labeled their fellow democrats for what they are -- liberals.

What they don't understand today is that being conservative is not being the boogeyman.  Being conservative means we believe the Government should live within their means and stay out of our every day lives.

Liberal Democrats like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid want to fundamentally change the way we live to a more socialist leaning Country so the people depend on the Government but you won't see the liberal media saying that.  Their reporting on anything that is liberal out of this group is in the back of the paper if reported at all.

The mainstream media has been in the tank so long for liberal Democrats that the questions comes to mind if they were ever fair to conservatives starting with Barry Goldwater.  Most of the national media seems unable to deal with conservatives who want less intrusion of the Government in their lives as the media are big government supporters themselves -- the bigger the better.  Their lack of investigation into Obama's associates tells the whole story -- they wanted Obama not McCain so they did everything they could to make Obama look like he walked on water and pulled the wool over a lot of voter's eyes.

Very easy to see bias in the national media with these numbers of how they label people.

Email from the Media Research Center CyberAlert:
3:35 PM EDT, Tuesday August 16, 2011 

Media Reality Check. “By 20-to-1, Nets Apply Ideological Labels to Republicans Over Democratic Presidential Candidates; MRC Study: ABC, CBS and NBC Pile on 62 Conservative Labels This Year, vs. a Mere 3 Liberal Tags in 2007” 

Below is the text of a Media Reality Check, researched and written by the MRC’s Research Director, Rich Noyes, which was posted earlier today. 

To read the Media Reality Check online, with a bar graph: http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/realitycheck/2011/20110815050640.aspx
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This year’s crop of GOP presidential candidates includes strong conservatives, just like the top Democratic candidates four years ago — Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards — were all staunch liberals. But a major, glaring difference between today’s campaign coverage and the early coverage of the 2007 Democratic nomination race is the impulse of journalists to repeatedly brand the 2012 GOP candidates as “conservative” despite offering extremely few “liberal” labels four years ago. 

Media Research Center analysts reviewed the ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs from January 1 through July 31 and found 62 “conservative” labels for Republican candidates or those talked about as potential candidates. A check of the same broadcasts for the same time period in 2007 found a paltry three “liberal” labels for the Democrats running that year, a greater than 20-to-1 disparity. 

In fact, reporters four years ago used the “liberal” label more freely with Republican candidates than Democrats. ABC’s Jake Tapper (World News, March 5, 2007) called Rudy Giuliani a “former big city mayor with liberal views on abortion, gay rights, and gun control.” But Democratic candidates such as Edwards and Clinton, whose views were to the left of Giuliani, were not once called “liberal” on any of the networks during the period we examined, while 

CBS and NBC never tagged Barack Obama as liberal. 

With this year’s crop of Republicans, however, the networks aren’t being nearly as stingy with the ideological labels. On the March 22 edition of NBC’s Today, for example, Natalie Morales told viewers about former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s candidacy: “The 50-year-old conservative announced on Facebook Monday that he was forming an exploratory committee....” 

On the June 13 Early Show, correspondent Jan Crawford called former Senator Rick Santorum the “strongest social conservative in the bunch.” 

ABC’s John Hendren, on the May 14 Good Morning America, described former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as “a conservative’s conservative who last held office when Seinfeld was a hit TV show and Michael Jackson was still on tour.” That night, Hendren revised his script for ABC’s World News to describe Gingrich as “a family values conservative who’s had three wives since he last held office....” 

Rick Perry, according to Ron Claiborne on the May 28 Good Morning America, “has strong conservative credentials.” On the June 27 Good Morning America, reporter Jonathan Karl described Congresswoman Michele Bachmann as a “take-no-prisoners conservative.” Earlier, on the May 27 World News, he compared Bachmann with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin: “Politically, they appear to be soul mates — unbending conservatives who fire up Tea Partiers like no other Republicans.” 

Indeed, the most-labeled candidate this cycle is Michele Bachmann, who accounted for more than a third (23) of the ideological descriptions we tallied. On ABC’s World News on June 14, correspondent John Berman called Bachmann “one of Congress’s most conservative members.” Later that month, ABC’s Jon Karl described Bachmann as having “unyieldingly conservative views (June 26) and as an “uncompromising conservative” (June 27). Over on the CBS Evening News, Jan Crawford tagged Bachmann as “unapologetically conservative” (June 26). 

On the June 27 NBC Nightly News, correspondent Kelly O’Donnell said Bachmann was “known for her firebrand conservative style.” The next morning on Today, co-host Matt Lauer asked Bachmann: “Are you at all concerned that your socially conservative views, that make you very popular in Iowa, might not play as well down the road?” 

Four years ago, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards espoused the most stridently liberal positions of the major Democratic candidates, but drew no liberal labels from January 1 through July 31, 2007. (Then-NBC reporter Chip Reid, however, did supply a single liberal label on the December 28, 2006 edition of Today, as Edwards prepared to announce his candidacy: “Critics say Edwards is too liberal and, with just one term in the Senate, too inexperienced.”) 

Viewers only heard two liberal labels for then-Senator Barack Obama, who, like Edwards, espoused strongly liberal positions as a candidate. The labels came in a single flattering story by ABC’s Jake Tapper that was aired both on the January 16, 2007 World News and the next morning’s Good Morning America: “Obama has drawn raves for presenting fairly traditional liberal views as fresh and inspiring....” 

As for then-New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who led the Democratic field throughout 2007, she was also never termed a liberal. In fact, network analysts busied themselves refuting the notion. “People think she’s a liberal, even though she’s hawkish,” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asserted on NBC’s Today on January 15, 2007. 

The only other “liberal” label in 2007 was assigned to then-Democratic candidate Chris Dodd, referred to by NBC Nightly News correspondent John Yang on February 4, 2007 as part of “a small group of liberal Democrats” who wanted to cut off Iraq war funding to block President Bush’s proposed troop surge. For its part, CBS failed to attach a single liberal label to theDemocratic candidates during the first seven months of 2007.

It’s neither inaccurate nor impolite to describe this year’s GOP candidates as “conservative” — most of them wear the label proudly. But if the networks are going to treat both sides fairly, they should have been just as ardent in pointing out the liberalism of the Democratic field that produced the most liberal President in American history. 

Visit MRC for the full August 16 Media Reality Check

White House After Liberal Bloggers, Fox News, Social Networking Sites, and ?

This past weekend the White House Communications Director took on Fox News for being part of the "Republican Party." CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, and now ESPN continue to carry the Obama water even today with little to no investigative journalism. We posted ESPN because when we turned into Monday Night Football, there was Obama making a speech. Are we not allowed to watch sports now without hearing/seeing Obama?

One broadcast media outlet, Fox News Channel, dares to tell the 'truth' about what is happening in DC and they are now the target of the Obama White House. Fox can be just as irritating to Republicans especially Geraldo who drew the map in the sand to spotlight where are troops were located in Iraq and the most famous of all -- Al Capone's safe. Sheppard Smith is sure not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Does the Obama Administration want state run media so they can determine what the people are going to hear and see? Obama all the time positive news spin seems to be the only media this White House wants to survive. This has to be the biggest whiners ever in the Obama Administration and the most thin skinned. They seem to forget they are no longer in Chicago where they can control the news.

The liberal bloggers are the most recent target of the Obama White House as they try to stiffle all dissent against the Obama agenda.

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: Disappointment from the “Netroots” has been an early and repeated theme of President Obama’s time in office, with sharp disagreements between the White House and the political left over such areas as health care, gay rights, Afghanistan, Iraq, and civil liberties.

Those tensions reached a new blogospheric boiling point over the weekend, after CNBC’s John Harwood quoted an anonymous White House adviser’s reaction to the “Internet left fringe.” The adviser, Harwood said, told him that “those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.”

On ABCNews.com’s “Top Line” today, liberal blogger Jane Hamsher (not wearing pajamas) told us that the comment is emblematic of a White House that isn’t respecting the liberal activists who worked to elect Obama president. Many of those same liberals are dismayed to see a White House waffling in its commitment that a health care plan will include a “public option” to compete with private insurers.

Excerpt: See ABC News for Full Article

We heard about the attacks on Fox News by the White House Communications Director Dunn but seeing and hearing her words on You Tube give a whole new meaning to attacks on Fox. We assume with this attack that Axelrod had no luck with Roger Ailes to turn Fox News into a pro-Obama network. Nice to know at least one network cannot be bought by the Obama Administration. See for yourself below the WH Comm Director Dunn going after Fox News.



Now we find out that the White House has been collecting information from social-networking sites. What gives with the Obama promise as the most transparent Administration ever. This keeps reminding us of the enemies list of the Nixon White House only taken to a new low level. We would bet that a lot of young people who bought into the Obama Hope and Change are not happy with what the words really mean today -- sending people to spy on what is being said. This on top of the website they had to pull to have people report anyone that said anything against Obama.

This is all starting to spook Americans as to what the Obama Administration has in mind as they continue to attempt to make everyone walk in lock step with supporting Obama. Loyal opposition doesn't seem to have ever crossed their mind.

EXCLUSIVE:
W.H. collects Web users' data without notice
Social-media messages go into archivesBy Audrey Hudson
Sep 16, 2009
EXCLUSIVE:

The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.

Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.

"The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example," he

Excerpt: See Full Article at Washington Times

Media Bias -- NY Times and East Coast Elite Media

When we started to look for information about the NY Times appointing a new editor since they had missed the ACORN and Jones stories, we discovered plenty of cover for the Times on the left including the Politico article that took shots at Glenn Beck. We ended up at Newsbusters once again -- when you want to find the truth about what is happening in journalism at the major print or broadcast outlets, you can always count on them to have the facts.

We would also like to point out that the NY Times and other east coast elite media missed or downplayed one of the biggest stories of the year -- the 9/12 march on DC. As you can see in the picture below, people turned out for as far as the eye could see so why did the elite media downplay the event and the number of people involved? Better yet why did Obama skip town that day?

Compare the 9/12 march where no trash was left to clean up with the anarchists in Pittsburg destroying property. You would think at least one major media outlet besides Fox News and the Washington Times would be interested.

Public Editor Admits NY Times Slow on ACORN -- Not First Conservative Media Story NYT's Ignored
By Clay Waters (Bio Archive)September 28, 2009 - 11:08 ET

New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt's latest column tackles the ACORN scandal -- or as Times readers know it: "What ACORN scandal?"

In "Tuning In Too Late," Hoyt criticized the Times for its lack of coverage of the juicy ACORN imbroglio, an omission that has prodded the paper into creating a new semi-position. It's assigned an editor to monitor opinion media and catch stories like this earlier (apparently not a single television at Times headquarters is tuned to Fox News, where they could have caught it quite easily.)

Hoyt summarized the video sting in which ACORN workers at several branches across the country were captured giving advice on child sex trafficking and tax evasion to a gaudy pimp and a hot-pants prostitute (actually conservative activists James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles). The tapes, whose gradual release were masterfully mediated by Andrew Brietbart at his new website BigGovernment.com, resulted in ACORN being cut off from federal funding and losing its ties to the Census Bureau and IRS. Yet the Times took little interest in the scandal and the consequences:

But for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn, The Times stood still. Its slow reflexes -- closely following its slow response to a controversy that forced the resignation of Van Jones, a White House adviser -- suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television and partisan blogs.

Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire. But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself.

This is quite misleading. The Times already monitors opinion media for story tips. It's just that they only monitor the left side of the blogosphere. Lachlan Markay provided some stark examples at NewsBusters on Sunday:

The Times consistently cites liberal blogs far more than ones on the right, undermining the claim that they missed these two stories because they don't monitor online media. A Nexis search reveals 477 combined mentions of five of the left's top blogs: Huffington Post, Think Progress, Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos, and Media Matters.

But a search for five of the right's top blogs, Hot Air, Pajamas Media, NewsBusters, RedState, and TownHall turns up only 18 combined mentions from the Times.

(Excerpt) See Newsbusters for Full Article

Times is even missing the story of ACORN corruption including voter fraud by concentrating on prostitution. Is it on purpose or are they that naive to believe the heads of ACORN? If they believe ACORN, then they are really out of touch which does not shock us.

Compare those numbers to get a clear picture of the bias at the NY Times: 477 combined mentions of five of the left's top blogs versus 18 combined mentions from the right's top blogs. If my math is correct that is 459 more times that the liberal blogs are quoted and yet the NY Times doesn't want us to think of them as being biased? Think a better question would be is to ask them when they were not biased in favor of liberals? That is the problem with today's liberal Democrats including their friends in media as they totally miss the fact they are out of touch with much of America. They live inside their little cacoon of liberals and think all Americans have to think like them.

The vast majority of America is center right and are getting upset at what we see is a move to the far left which leaves a lot of Democrats asking what happened to their Party. Do we see anything about that by the Elite Media. Not on your life -- they will continue to follow Obama, Reid, and Pelosi over the cliff and then wonder why they lost readers and/or viewers. Middle America is just some place to ignore as they have tagged us for years as flyover country.

Explosive New Audio Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda

See details about the Valerie Jarrett connection below the Breaking News of Andrew Breitbart who has once again broke the story the DC media elites won't touch. We are seeing actual investigative journalism from Andrew Breitbart which is refreshing.

Explosive New Audio Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda

Big Hollywood
9/21/2009
Patrick Courrielche

Should the National Endowment for the Arts encourage artists to create art on issues being vehemently debated nationally?

That is the question that I set out to discuss a little over three weeks ago when I wrote an article on Big Hollywood entitled The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion?”

The question still requires debate but the facts do not. The NEA and the White House did encourage a handpicked, pro-Obama arts group to address politically
controversial issues under contentious national debate. That fact is irrefutable.

(Excerpt) Read more at bighollywood.breitbart.com

We are beginning to lean toward the fact that Valerie Jarrett is running the Government as the go-between with Soros/Ayers/Dohrn Shadow Government using Obama as a puppet. She was able to get Jones hired in spite of protest.

Some more background on Valerie her father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett's connection to Frank Davis, Davis connection to Obama, and Valerie Jarrett's mother, Barbara Bowman's connection to Vernon Jarrett, and Tom Ayers, Bill Ayers, and Bernadette Dohn connection can be found here:

VALERIE JARRETT'S MOTHER AND BILL AYERS' FATHER

Frank Marshall Davis was under FBI investigation for 19 years and moved from Chicago to Hawaii in 1948, leaving behind a colleague named Vernon Jarrett. Both wrote for a leftwing newspaper called the Chicago Defender. In 1971, Davis was introduced to a 9 year-old Barack Obama and mentored him for 9 years.

Oh, and in addition to Frank Marshall Davis being a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), he wrote pornogrpahic books that even delved into child molestation. One book in particular, 'SEX REBEL' did just that.

(snip)

Valerie Bowman's marriage to Vernon Jarrett's late son only lasted five years but the Bowman and Jarrett families had been life long friends.

(Excerpt) Read More at Barrack Now

If a blogger can do the connection in less then 5 minutes, what is up with the alphabet networks, CNN, MSNBC, and the major print media? Guess they have decided to toss the Society of Professional Journists Code of Ethics out the window to keep kneepadding and spinning for this Administration. All the links are there for anyone to find but we mostly hear crickets chirping from the members of the DC elite media. How far left has our media gone to where they don't seem to care if they report the facts as long as they continue to serve Obama and his socialist agenda. Do members of the media want to become State Run Media -- they wouldn't have to think that way and could recycle Obama press releases as facts.

Van Jones P.S.: Human Shields Who Protected Saddam Were "Heroes" (Video with Transcript)

hotairpundit
9/9/09

This released from Breitbart.tv with a transcript, MSNBC has the video but wont release it..

(Excerpt) Read more at hotairpundit.blogspot.com

Comments: MSNBC still carrying Obama's water on Jones. Never ends. What kind of a mainstream media does the United States have today when they refuse to carry something like this that is news whether they like it or not. Their job is to report the news not censor the news to fit their agenda.