Barack Obama decides to attack House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and just a few days later the lefty New York Times publishes a shoddy hit piece on the same Republican leader. Just a coinky dink, I’m sure. As we know, a lefty administration and lefty media outlet would never coordinate attacks on political opponents.

How shoddy is the hit piece? The paper was still changing accusations after publication. The lobbyist went from having won the support of John Boehner to having sought the support of the same. In which universe do the words “won” and “sought” have the same meaning? The paper can’t even decide which shoddy accusation it’s lobbing at Boehner.

Absolutely pathetic and yet entirely predictable. Democrats can’t win based on their actual record so lefty media outlets set about smearing the opposition with shoddy, indecisive accusations that actually have to be changed after publication. We’re not talking simple grammatical errors; the paper actual changed the accusation after publication. Pathetic.

I eagerly await the New York Times‘ imminent expose on how often labor and other left-wing lobbyists visit both the Obama Administration and the Democratic majority, telling them how and when to vote on legislation. I’m sure that will be in next week’s paper.

Update: From Timothy Carney on Twitter:

So the NY Times thinks Boehner would be FOR cap-&-trade boondoggles were it not for a lobbyist? I guess that’s the Obama’s implication, too.

Yeah, that would be another shoddy aspect of the Times’ political hit piece. Does anyone really believe it was a lobbyist who convinced the conservative Republican leader to oppose a government-expanding, job-killing environmental measure? Really?