The McCain campaign is loaded for bear

This, directly from the McCain campaign, deserves to be reprinted in its entirety:

Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis — weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual — since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times‘ reporting, Mr. Davis has never — never — been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with…Paul Begala.

Again, let us be clear: The New York Times — in the absence of any supporting evidence — has insinuated some kind of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and Rick Davis. But entirely missing from the story is any significant mention of Senator McCain’s long advocacy for, and co-sponsorship of legislation to enact, stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — dating back to 2006. Please see the attached floor statement on this issue by Senator McCain from 2006.

To the central point our campaign has made in the last 48 hours: The New York Times has never published a single investigative piece, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, his consulting and lobbying clients, and Senator Obama. Likewise, the New York Times never published an investigative report, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and Senator Obama, who appointed Johnson head of his VP search committee, until the writing was on the wall and Johnson was under fire following reports from actual news organizations that he had received preferential loans from predatory mortgage lender Countrywide.

Therefore this “report” from the New York Times must be evaluated in the context of its intent and purpose. It is a partisan attack falsely labeled as objective news. And its most serious allegations are based entirely on the claims of anonymous sources, a familiar yet regretful tactic for the paper.

We all understand that partisan attacks are part of the political process in this country. The debate that stems from these grand and sometimes unruly conversations is what makes this country so exceptional. Indeed, our nation has a long and proud tradition of news organizations that are ideological and partisan in nature, the Huffington Post and the New York Times being two such publications. We celebrate their contribution to the political fabric of America. But while the Huffington Post is utterly transparent, the New York Times obscures its true intentions — to undermine the candidacy of John McCain and boost the candidacy of Barack Obama — under the cloak of objective journalism.

The New York Times is trying to fill an ideological niche. It is a business decision, and one made under economic duress, as the New York Times is a failing business. But the paper’s reporting on Senator McCain, his campaign, and his staff should be clearly understood by the American people for what it is: a partisan assault aimed at promoting that paper’s preferred candidate, Barack Obama.

If you go to the link, you can see the floor statement that is referred to above.

Incidentally, Michelle Malkin tends to be snarky about McCain’s finally realizing that the New York Times is a party organ, not a news source.  I’d rather hold fire on this one, perhaps because it took me so long to realize that the Democratic party wasn’t what I thought it was.  I’ll say for McCain what I say for me:  Better late than never.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Oldflyer

    The obvious concern is that McCain’s statement will be repeated on Conservative blogs and talk radio, but completely ignored by the MSM. Therefore, the people who may be undecided will remain uninformed. Classic preaching to the choir.

  • suek

    What would be the action if you could reasonably establish that the NYT was in fact campaigning for Obama?

  • 11B40


    Today’s media question: What’s Black and White and Red all over?

    It’s a bit past time, but I’m glad to see that the McCain Campaign has found its afterburner switch. I’ve been breathing shallow now for several months, hoping that the good Senator was just letting the “kill zone” of his ambush fill.

    Hopefully, the campaign will open a Congressional front also.

  • Mike Devx

    Book says,
    “Incidentally, Michelle Malkin tends to be snarky about McCain’s finally realizing that the New York Times is a party organ, not a news source.”

    I believe the idea that the media is objective has really only been around since CBS’ glory days during World War II. What I think we’re seeing is simply a return to the concept of the media editorial group as advocacy for one side or the other. Naked advocacy.

    The only problem is that they’re still pretending to be objective, and the public still buys it. That’s reality on the ground that we conservatives have to accept. The public’s acceptance of the lie might last through this election, but it won’t last too much longer.

    It *is* too late for the media to backtrack now to regain objectivity. Given the pressure from the web and 24/7 news, and the loss already of conservatives, who feel the hurt from their naked bias and have had it, they can never go back to reclaim objectivity.

    Many are saying that an objective media is vital for our republic to survive. I don’t agree. How did we survive from 1789 until 1940? Perhaps the brief, sixty-year experiment with media objectivity should be over. Certainly objectivity has been decaying for the last forty years in any case.

  • Bookworm

    As you know, Mike, I’ve never had a problem with an openly partisan media, such as they have in England (although even the “right-leaning” Telegraph is very liberal by American standards). My objection has long been with the media’s con job on Americans, which is that they are indeed printing “all the news,” not just the news that matters to their side of the story.

  • rockdalian

    For those with a taste for history. Scandalmonger, written by William Safire .

    Review from Publishers Weekly:
    Grammar maven, Pulitzer Prize-winner, novelist (Freedom) and erudite political columnist Safire delivers a sprawling, fact-based if somewhat stiffly written novel that will acquaint readers with several of the nation’s first political scandals. In light of the recent White House brouhaha, it’s fascinating to learn that in the days of the founding fathers, politicians were just as licentious and newspapermen even more scurrilous than some players in contemporary media.

    Amazon link:

    Just shows there’s really not much new about this.

  • Mike Devx


    I agree completely. I also think the “con job” snuck on the media slowly. (The frog in the boiling water analogy comes to mind – and we have now reached the boiling point in the last few months, and the frog just died.) I think they’ve been slowly slipping since the 70’s, and they didn’t recognize the danger, and now it’s simply too late to go back.

    Perhaps some few media will be able to reintroduce new, rigorous objective standards, and regain our trust; there must be an audience out there for *truly* objective news. I can’t see that happening until the current owners throw up their hands and sell their media to new owners. By the time that would happen, the entire organization would already have been staffed by partisans, and they really couldn’t possibly go along with new owners laying down the law, could they? So I just can’t see it happening.

    Media partisanship has already reached critical mass. I think it won’t be long until the public awareness of this reaches critical mass as well.

  • Mike Devx

    This is what passes for media objectivity. At least Cambell Brown (of CNN) admits she’s about to go on a rant before she actually *does* go on a rant.

    “Free Sarah Palin! Free Sarah Palin!”

    How pathetic. She’s clearly not wanting to help out poor, poor Sarah. She’s angry and frustrated at the McCain campaign – and seeking to *force* it to do what she wants, and isn’t *that* an amazing bit of advocacy? – and that’s all that’s going on there. Except for the fact that she’s trying to hide her real motives behind a totally fake “concern” for poor, poor Sarah.

    If I had a child that attempted this kind of deceitful argument – nay, rant – I’d send her to bed without supper to think about it.

    “Free Sarah Palin! Free Sarah Palin!”
    I’ve gotta go laugh uproarously for a while. See y’all tomorrow.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I agree, Book. I am totally OK with an admittedly partisan media, as in the UK. I actually enjoy reading the Guardian (a Lefty paper) and the Times (a more conservative paper) for different points of view.

    The problem with the NYT, CNN and its fellow travelers, though, is not their points of view but the fact that they will deliberately falsify or distort facts to push an ideological agenda.

    One example of such distortion is the news media practice of omitting the party affiliation of stories on corrupt Democrats while highlighting it for Republicans. For another, simply read through the buried retractions section of the NYT. Then, there was the case of CNN’s Eason Jordan that it had deliberately slanted their coverage of Saddam Hussein in order to protect their access to him.

    My attitude is that once a news organization shoots its credibility, I have neither the time nor the money to bother with it any longer. Say what you will, FOX news makes a point of presenting spokespeople with conflicting points of view. If I want DNC talking points, it’s much cheaper to send in a $10 contribution and wait for them to appear in my mailbox than to bother with the Lefty MSM. Life’s too short.