DSCC LIZARD MAN STRIKES AGAIN-- SCHUMER FEEDS LAZY NY TIMES REPORTER FAKE FACTS

I'm sure many NY Times readers were cheered by the story in this morning's edition about how Democrats have a shot at a 60-member majority, not quite the good old days of 1937 when there were only 16 Republicans in the Senate, but good enough to toss Lieberman out of the caucus on his ear and good enough to start cleaning up the massive damage 8 years of Bush and his allies have caused. Less conspicuous is the little clickable "multimedia" graphic on the left. If you do click it, you find Schumer's paw prints all over it. I don't know if David Herszenhorn, the writer of the article, put it together or some other Times functionary put the nicely laid-out but completely misleading information for the chart together. Maybe it was an intern. Maybe Herszenhorn or, more likely, one of his editors, shouted, "Hey, you, intern, call Schumer's office at the DSCC and ask them who their candidates are in these fahkaktah races."

And that's exactly what the Times readers are reading today-- the list of Inside the Beltway hacks and shills Schumer is backing in races with hot primaries, not the grassroots candidates. So a Democratic financial contributor-- all the Senator from Wall Street has ever cared about-- reading his morning Times will be falsely led to believe that Kentucky Democrats have endorsed someone they truly loathe and have always voted against, Republican-lite Bruce Lunsford (the man Schumer is trying to force on Bluegrass State Democrats, not because he thinks he can win-- Schumer is no dummy and he knows Lunsford has exactly zero chance-- but so that Lunsford will use his great fortune and spend millions of dollars tying down McConnell and making him spend his huge lobbyist-supplied warchest in Kentucky instead of Colorado or New Mexico or Virginia or Minnesota or Maine). The Times neglects to mention that there is an actual Democratic candidate, polling at least as well as Lunsford, Greg Fischer.

Similarly, Jim Neal, the grassroots candidate in North Carolina, doesn't exist for a Times reader. It's all about the Liddy Dole mirror image Big Money insider Schumer dragged into the race, Kay Hagan. My friends in Oregon tell me there's a hot primary battle between two excellent candidates going on there. If you're a New York Times reader today, you only know that Schumer's guy, State House Speaker Jeff Merkley, is the "Democrat." At least Merkley is a Democrat, with genuine Democratic values and positions, like Steve Novick, the other candidate the Times didn't bother to mention.

Oddly, in Minnesota, the high profile race to find the candidate who will retire rubber stamp creep Norm Coleman-- who, by the way, grew up within blocks of where I grew up and where the Lizard Man grew up-- doesn't name a candidate but instead says, properly, "to be determined."

The Times might argue, disingenuously, that asterisks next to Hagan's name and Lunsford's name that indicate there are "other challengers in field," satisfies complaints of grassroots Democrats. It doesn't. Schumer thinks you can beat a rubber stamp Republican incumbent by putting forward a candidate with similarly reactionary views. He's wrong. He should have learned his lesson in 2006 in Montana when he tried shoving DLC shill, John Morrison, down voters throats, only to be laughed out of Dodge, see grassroots populist Jon Tester win the primary and go on-- by drawing sharp contrasts, not by playing "me too"-- beat the incumbent Republican. Schumer also backed DLC hack Harold Ford, the only high profile Democrat to lose last cycle. Why? Because Tennessee voters couldn't tell which candidate was more Republican, Corker or Ford. They figured they might as well go for the Truth-in-Advertising guy and picked Corker in an otherwise huge Democratic year. Schumer is authoring similar scenarios in North Carolina and Kentucky. The Lizard must be stopped. This media disinformation the Times bought into, is part of a strategy Insiders like Schumer and Emanuel always use to sell the inevitability of their hacks and shills. Shame on the New York Times for the laziness.