A partisan paper of record

[Angus]

Posted at 1:57 AM on 9/24/2008 by Michael Goldfarb

A Partisan Paper of Record

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.

http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainrepo...6-53c0c2d88376

[Heisenberg]

Nowhere in their rebuttal do they actually deny the allegations, strangely enough.

[ScipioCowboy]

Originally Posted by Ozzu

Nowhere in their rebuttal do they actually deny the allegations, strangely enough.

Reread the first paragraph.

[Heisenberg]

Originally Posted by ScipioCowboy

Reread the first paragraph.

His firm was receiving payments through last month. He's on leave of absence, but it's still his firm.

Then again, it doesn't really matter. I was just pointing out something I had noticed.

[jimnabby]

This piece rebuts charges that the Times never actually made. The Times never said that "Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month".

[ScipioCowboy]

Originally Posted by jimnabby

This piece rebuts charges that the Times never actually made. The Times never said that "Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month".

McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac

By JACKIE CALMES and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: September 23, 2008
WASHINGTON — One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.

Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis & Manafortfor the presidential campaign, but as a partner and equity-holder continues to benefit from its income. No one at Davis & Manafort other than Mr. Davis was involved in efforts on Freddie Mac’s behalf, the people familiar with the arrangement said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us...jqYpj4hIKUGgnQ

Posted at 1:57 AM on 9/24/2008 by Michael Goldfarb

A Partisan Paper of Record

[View Full Quote] 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.

[NinePointOh]

Originally Posted by jimnabby

This piece rebuts charges that the Times never actually made. The Times never said that "Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month".

Re-read the first paragraph of the Times article.

[ScipioCowboy]

Originally Posted by NinePointOh

Re-read the first paragraph of the Times article.

McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac

By JACKIE CALMES and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: September 23, 2008
WASHINGTON — One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.

Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis & Manafortfor the presidential campaign, but as a partner and equity-holder continues to benefit from its income. No one at Davis & Manafort other than Mr. Davis was involved in efforts on Freddie Mac’s behalf, the people familiar with the arrangement said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us...jqYpj4hIKUGgnQ

[jimnabby]

Originally Posted by ScipioCowboy

McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac

By JACKIE CALMES and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: September 23, 2008
WASHINGTON — One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

[View Full Quote]The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.

Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis & Manafortfor the presidential campaign, but as a partner and equity-holder continues to benefit from its income. No one at Davis & Manafort other than Mr. Davis was involved in efforts on Freddie Mac’s behalf, the people familiar with the arrangement said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us...jqYpj4hIKUGgnQ

Thanks for confirming my point. The Times never said that "Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month." They said his firm was paid, that Davis is still a partner and equity holder, and that as such, he benefits from its income. None of those things were rebutted by the piece from the McCain campaign.

[ScipioCowboy]

Originally Posted by jimnabby

Thanks for confirming my point. The Times never said that "Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month." They said his firm was paid, that Davis is still a partner and equity holder, and that as such, he benefits from its income. None of those things were rebutted by the piece from the McCain campaign.

Posted at 1:57 AM on 9/24/2008 by Michael Goldfarb

A Partisan Paper of Record

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.

[jimnabby]

Originally Posted by ScipioCowboy

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.

What's your point? The Times alleged none of these things. They said that as an equity holder (which he is), he benefits from their income (which he does, as the value of his equity goes up). Again, the McCain campaign is attempting to rebut things that were never claimed.

[ScipioCowboy]

Originally Posted by jimnabby

What's your point? The Times alleged none of these things. They said that as an equity holder (which he is), he benefits from their income (which he does, as the value of his equity goes up). Again, the McCain campaign is attempting to rebut things that were never claimed.

McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac
By JACKIE CALMES and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: September 23, 2008

...

Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis & Manafortfor the presidential campaign, but as a partner and equity-holder continues to benefit from its income. No one at Davis & Manafort other than Mr. Davis was involved in efforts on Freddie Mac’s behalf, the people familiar with the arrangement said.

Posted at 1:57 AM on 9/24/2008 by Michael Goldfarb

A Partisan Paper of Record

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.
[View Full Quote] 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.

It's funny. I'm merely posting the same articles over and over again. If there's really nothing to it, you shouldn't feel threatened.

[jimnabby]

Originally Posted by ScipioCowboy

It's funny. I'm merely posting the same articles over and over again. If there's really nothing to it, you shouldn't feel threatened.

Ah, I take it you have nothing left, then, and you're reduced to pretending you weren't trying to rebut my statements. For the record, you weren't "merely posting the same articles over and over," you were quoting me and then highlighting particular sections of those articles in response.

The fact is that the NYT published a factual article and the McCain campaign is trying to manufacture some outrage by lying about what it says.

[ScipioCowboy]

Originally Posted by jimnabby

Ah, I take it you have nothing left, then, and you're reduced to pretending you weren't trying to rebut my statements.

I still have what I've always had: the articles that I continue to repost...which, apparently, are more than you have.

For the record, you weren't "merely posting the same articles over and over," you were quoting me and then highlighting particular sections of those articles in response.

So, in your view, highlighting different portions of the article somehow alters their content?

I think I've stumbled across the source of your confusion in this debate.

The fact is that the NYT published a factual article and the McCain campaign is trying to manufacture some outrage by lying about what it says.

Sure they are, dude.