The New York Times has a big scoop today. Can you believe this? Marco Rubio and his wife have gotten 17 tickets in 18 years. That merited a lengthy article from the official newspaper of the left. But there's problems with this story.
First of all, only four of the tickets in 18 years went to Rubio himself. Even at the Times, it is hard to believe that anyone thinks that the driving skills of the candidate's spouse matter to the voting public. Second, two of the tickets for senator Rubio were dismissed. That means he had two violations in 18 years. How many other people have gotten two tickets in 18 years? I know plenty of them myself. So putting all this together, the Times made a big deal out of nothing.
But it's worse. In the last few days, we have learned that there were dozens of Clinton political operatives who were given positions and salaries by the Clinton Foundation. In other words, all that fundraising done by the Clintons went to keep Hillary's political operatives on the staff during the years she was secretary of state and then getting ready for her second run for president. Taking foreign political contributions is illegal in the USA, but Hillary used the foundation to do just that. The Times hasn't written about that; instead, it is focused on Rubio's two tickets in 18 years. Then there's the story from two days ago that the Clinton Foundation had a secret organization collecting big money in Sweden as well as Bill Clinton getting $750,000 from the Swedish company Ericsson just at the time Hillary was considering (as secretary of state) whether or not to take action against Swedish companies (including Ericsson) that were violating the sanctions against Iran. Was it a coincidence that after Hillary and Bill collected about $25 million in secret from the Swedes, she decided not to take action against any of the violators of the sanctions? The Times is also not covering this story.
You decide which merits media coverage more: a) two traffic tickets; or b) violations of the campaign finance laws and what seems to be the secretary of state taking bribes from foreigners to excuse them for violating the law. My guess is that the Times is the only one that will vote for choice "a".
First of all, only four of the tickets in 18 years went to Rubio himself. Even at the Times, it is hard to believe that anyone thinks that the driving skills of the candidate's spouse matter to the voting public. Second, two of the tickets for senator Rubio were dismissed. That means he had two violations in 18 years. How many other people have gotten two tickets in 18 years? I know plenty of them myself. So putting all this together, the Times made a big deal out of nothing.
But it's worse. In the last few days, we have learned that there were dozens of Clinton political operatives who were given positions and salaries by the Clinton Foundation. In other words, all that fundraising done by the Clintons went to keep Hillary's political operatives on the staff during the years she was secretary of state and then getting ready for her second run for president. Taking foreign political contributions is illegal in the USA, but Hillary used the foundation to do just that. The Times hasn't written about that; instead, it is focused on Rubio's two tickets in 18 years. Then there's the story from two days ago that the Clinton Foundation had a secret organization collecting big money in Sweden as well as Bill Clinton getting $750,000 from the Swedish company Ericsson just at the time Hillary was considering (as secretary of state) whether or not to take action against Swedish companies (including Ericsson) that were violating the sanctions against Iran. Was it a coincidence that after Hillary and Bill collected about $25 million in secret from the Swedes, she decided not to take action against any of the violators of the sanctions? The Times is also not covering this story.
You decide which merits media coverage more: a) two traffic tickets; or b) violations of the campaign finance laws and what seems to be the secretary of state taking bribes from foreigners to excuse them for violating the law. My guess is that the Times is the only one that will vote for choice "a".
No comments:
Post a Comment