Today's Dishonest Politico Headline: 'Romney-Backed Solar Firm Flops'

President Obama authorized a rushed, poorly thought-out half-billion with a "b" taxpayer-funded "stimulus" into Solyndra, a company with a major stakeholder named George Kaiser, who is also a billionaire bundler for the Obama campaign. Presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney has thus far used Solyndra as a brilliant counter-attack against Obama's failed attacks on Bain Capital. After all, if Obama wants to compare venture capital records, I say, let's rock.

Well, per the usual, it's Politico, MSNBC's unofficial web-partner, to the rescue with this wildly dishonest headline:

Romney-Backed Solar Firm Flops, Dems Pounce

Sounds bad, doesn't it? Well, it's supposed to. The headline is supposed to declare to the world that Romney is a hypocrite and that his primary line of criticism against Obama is over. The first few paragraphs even back up the headline:But, deeper in the piece -- about eight freakin' paragraphs -- Politico writer Darren Sameulsohn finally gets to the heart of the issue:

[1.] The GOP campaign noted that Massachusetts officials approved Konarka's loan application for a new pilot production assembly line in December 2002, the month before Romney was sworn in. …

[2.] And even if Romney had been in office then, the agency that greenlighted the loan wasn't under the direct control of the governor. …

[3.] Later in his term, Romney tried to defund the underlying green energy financing program. …

[4.] Konarka, in the meantime, went on to raise $170 million in private capital as it amassed more than 100 patents for a variety of solar products, including thin, flexible panels that its customers then build into bags and umbrellas. It also raised $5 million more in state loans under Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick's administration.

So a solar company that received a loan not from Romney went out business 9 years after receiving the loan, and that's Politico's headline.
Also, there is no report of any Konarka investors doing double duty as a Romney campaign bundler.

Also, as governor Romney tried to kill the racket that is taxpayer-funding of green energy.

If the roles were reversed and it was Romney using Konarka to deflect from his failed Solyndra deal, the media fact-checkers would be swarming over him like jackals.

Instead, though, Politico plays right along with the White House talking points, burying the only facts that matter.

The media's getting desperate.

Journalists are crying foul at a new Obama policy that will deny them the right to use their own computers to write stories from economic data issued inside the halls of the Department of Labor. Instead, the DoL says, journalists will have to use government-owned computers, government-selected software, and government-owned Internet transmission lines to write their stories about the data issued by the department.

Like Fox News, The New York Times has a First Amendment right to spread misinformation about important public issues, and it is exercising that right in its campaign against the Citizens United ruling. In news stories, as well as columns, it has repeatedly mischaracterized Citizens United, explicitly or implicitly blaming it for allowing unlimited "super PAC" contributions from mega-rich individuals. In fact, Citizens United enabled corporations and unions to use general treasury funds for independent political expenditures; it did not expand or address the longstanding, individual rights of the rich to support independent groups. And, as recent reports have made clear, individual donors, not corporations, are the primary funders of super PACs.

Last week the environmental lobbying group the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a new report entitled "A Climate of Corporate Control: How Corporations Have Influenced the U.S. Dialogue on Climate Science and Policy" [PDF]. Among other things, the report claims to trace corporate donations in 2008 and 2009 to think tanks and politicians as a way to uncover the true corporate attitudes and intentions toward climate change science and policy. According to the UCS, its analysis reveals that some corporations are climate-change science hypocrites, claiming to support the climate-change “consensus” in some venues but not in others. This climate hypocrisy allegedly produces confusion among both the public and policymakers, resulting in the defeat or delay of urgent policies needed to address climate change.

So what vast sums of money did the duplicitous executives at General Electric lavish on the Reason Foundation in 2008 and 2009 to support an implied campaign to traduce climate science? Exactly $325.

...

When you add up the allegedly pro-climate matching funds, the total is $497,744, while the total for the purportedly anti-climate funds from GE employees amounts to $42,195. Applying the UCS’s “methodology” to the think tank world, this yields a pro/anti-climate ratio of nearly 12 to 1.

In January Stewart exploded on-air over Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s income level. “That’s almost — that’s almost $57,000 a day!” he gushed.

But Stewart’s own income level brings him and his wife Tracey approximately $41,000 a day. The celebrity income-handicapping website Celebrity Net Worth lists his annual salary as $15 million and estimates his net worth at $80 million.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/17/jo...#ixzz1y9rAzRzj