The NY Times is trying to play that old game "Monkey See, Monkey Do." Earlier in the week President Obama made House Minority leader John Boehner public enemy number one in his effort to save the Democratic Party from total electoral disaster this November. Surprise, Surprise today's NY Times features an anti-Boehner hit piece. And continuing the NY Times hit piece tradition, all of the "hits" are supplied by an anonymous source.
According to this NY Times source, a DC lobbyist, that supposedly is party of a group that regularly meets with the congressman:
One lobbyist in the club — after lauding each staff member in Mr. Boehner’s office that he routinely calls to ask for help — ticked off the list of recent issues for which he had sought the lawmaker’s backing: combating fee increases for the oil industry, fighting a proposed cap on debit card fees, protecting tax breaks for hedge fund executives and opposing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
Now look at that list for a second, they are all positions that any conservative Republican who believes in smaller government and keeping the government off the backs of industry, would take. Think about it. Does the NY Times really expect us to believe that Boehner opposed "cap and trade" because of some lobbyist. As a registered Republican, if the Minority Leader supported "cap and trade" I would have personally driven to Washington to take away his Conservative Republican secret decoder ring. Cap and trade, is anti-business, expands government and raises taxes, Boehner's opposition is a "no brainer."
Byron York reported that
Boehner spokesman Michael Steel says he received a fact-checking email from Times reporter Eric Lipton Friday evening asking if Boehner did in fact oppose the cap on greenhouse gases, the tax change for hedge fund executives, the debit card fee cap, and increased fees on oil and gas companies. "Yes, that is correct," Steel responded to Lipton, adding "I can tell you why, if you care." Steel says he received no further notes from Lipton.
...."They were offered the opportunity to find out if this was true, and they chose to rely instead on the word of an anonymous lobbyist," says spokesman Michael Steel. "They intentionally refused to get the information to prove that this allegation was false."
That may be true Mr. Steel but the NY Times has a lot invested in this President. After all they made up a story about his opponent John McCain having an affair, and even printed an op-ed from candidate Obama but wouldn't let McCain respond. The "Old Grey Lady" threw journalistic integrity out the window a very long time ago, why would you expect them to be fair now?