NY Times sits on top of the world but it's not good enough. Who but the Times would connect an anti cap and trade sign in 2009 to attempted murder?

Maybe the National Enquirer. With no reason to connect the Tucson shooter to one political ideology or group, but sufficient to say the person had mental problems, who in the media would post a vile political connection? Someone from the most important newspaper in the world, the NY Times. A reporter/commentator raced to post a comment and link to an 'anti cap and trade' sign in a video he suggests could connect to or incite the Tucson shooting. It is of course a Tea Party video from 7/09 of some "extremists" one of whose signs (an anti cap and trade sign) the Times person suggests could connect somehow to Representative Gabrielle Giffords (who was pro cap and trade/global warming). The Times knows they can say whatever they want, even implying incitement to murder, and nothing will happen to them. People will believe them. There is one good part about Revkin's "connection" to the murder attempt. The Tucson Tea Party knew in July 2009 that the media (which includes the Times) would describe them as "extremists" so they cheerily introduced themselves as such--to help the media out--on the video, "Here we have some more extremists!," says the MC. Revkin was probably upset too because the sign was 'anti cap and trade' which often means the sign holder knows global warming does not exist, and Revkin's beat is global warming.

• From Andrew Revkin Twitter

• "Tucson, 7/09, Giffords picketer holds up Cap'n'Traitor skull-bones sign. Not so funny now? http://twitpic.com/3o8ckr Vid http://j.mp/TeaSgn"

• The climate website Tom Nelson explains Revkin's comment and link:

"After the Arizona tragedy, left-winger Andy Revkin finds a lesson for us: Don't criticize a warmist politician, or you'll feel extra-bad

• if some nut subsequently shoots that politician?"

• ####

Revkin seems to have the same affliction as the NY Times editorial board, 9/16/10, starting with the all-important headline (there are no people snarling on the above video):

• "NY Times Editorial, "The Tea Party's Snarl"

"For both parties

• and certainly the broad swath of independent voters,

• defeating this new crop of Tea Party nominees has become

imperative to avoid the sense of national embarrassment from each

• divisive and offensive utterance,

• each wacky policy proposal."...

The NY Times sits on top of the world, but it's no where near enough for them. The people in the video, as Tea Party supporters anywhere, are nothing like the NY Times portrays them. The Times is obsessed with the Tea Party. One wonders why.

• Related: "1/8/11, "New York Times Implicates Sarah Palin in Giffords Shooting," American Thinker, Peter Wilson

NY Times Revkin Twitter via Tom Nelson

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon