Debating with Doug is like playing baseball with a pitching machine.

No matter how many times you hit it out of the park, the machine keeps right on throwing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Doug is like many liberals. They want to believe it soooooo bad they will seek out and find anything that even remotely suggests its true. Even when faced with direct evidence that refutes their beliefs.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Oh for mercy’s sake, Doug. Now you’re on this thread trying to peddle your Rick Davis/lobbyist for Fannie Freddie lies??

Look, all. Doug and I already went thru this thoroughly on another thread in the past day or so. He’s here now, looking for fresh, gullible blood.

I’m not repeating all the data. Start reading the other thread from this comment on and you’ll catch up to the BS Doug’s reluctant to let go of.

Knock it off, Doug. It wasn’t true in the past couple of days, and it’s not true now.

Nuff said…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Doug, it’s too bad you get your facts from a bias source. Here is the thruth:

A PARTISAN PAPER OF RECORD
9/24/2008

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….

Read the rest of the article:

http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=74063c9d-7cb5-47c9-acf6-53c0c2d88376

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Rick Davis, John McCain’s campaign manager, has remained the treasurer and a corporate director of his lobbying firm this year, despite repeated statements by campaign officials that he had ended his relationship with the firm in 2006, according to corporate records.

The McCain campaign this week criticized news stories disclosing that, since 2006, Davis’s firm has been paid a $15,000-a-month consulting fee from Freddie Mac, the troubled mortgage giant recently put under federal conservatorship. The stories, published Tuesday by NEWSWEEK, The New York Times and Roll Call, reported that the consulting fees continued until last month even though, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement, neither Davis nor anybody else at his firm did any substantial work for the payments.

Stefanie Mullin, a spokesperson for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which has taken over Freddie Mac and its sister entity Fannie Mae, confirmed Wednesday that the Davis Manafort contract is being terminated. “All lobbying activity has stopped and political consulting contracts at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in the process of being terminated,” said Mullin. (Democratic strategist Paul Begala also was on the Freddie Mac payroll, according to sources familiar with the arrangement.)
…

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160713
Hummm… still an officer at the firm… despite their saying he’s cut those ties???

Anyway, here’s why Goldfarb is wrong (plus you might now want to add Isikoff’s story in there too):

Michael Goldfarb, who’s found his true calling now as an official–as opposed to de facto–Republican flim flam artist, offers up the McCain campaign’s rebuttal to this morning’s NYT story about Rick Davis’s ever-deepening ties to Freddie Mac. Goldfarb’s statement really is a masterpiece of bluster and evasion. Let’s look at it more closely.

It begins:

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.

This is a nice bit of sleight of hand on Goldfarb’s part. The NYT story doesn’t allege that Davis himself was paid by Freddie Mac until last month; rather, it alleges that his firm–from which, as the NYT story notes, he’s been on leave during the presidential campaign–was paid by Freddie Mac. Anyway, keep that in mind when you read Goldfarb’s second graf:

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.

So Goldfarb is basically answering an allegation the Times story doesn’t make. Indeed, the central allegation of the Times story is that McCain was either misinformed or was lying when he recently said that Davis’s work with the mortgage giant ended in 2005 when it dissolved its Homeownership Alliance, of which Davis served as president (for the princely sum of $30,000 to $35,000 a month). As today’s NYT story reports, after the Homeownership Alliance was disbanded, Davis went to Freddie Mac and asked to be put on a retainer, for $15,000 a month. Nowhere in Goldfarb’s rebuttal does he address–or even acknowledge–that charge.

Which brings us to the final relevant portion of Goldfarb’s rebuttal:

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.

That’s true, but the NYT story doesn’t allege that Davis was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac. Rather, the NYT reports that he was a “consultant.” And that’s actually a crucial–and, in this instance, damning–distinction, since, by serving as a consultant rather than as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, Davis’s firm didn’t have to disclose its payments from Freddie Mac in federal lobbying reports (which is why we didn’t know about them until some ticked-off Fannie and Freddie folks revealed them to the Times). In other words, it looks as if Davis was almost trying to hide the fact that he was getting paid by Freddie Mac.

Goldfarb ends his rebuttal by reprinting a McCain statement from 2006 calling for regulatory reform of Fannie and Freddie. But I think it’s worth reminding the McCain campaign of another statement by its candidate–this one more pithy and more relevant to the situation it currently faces with Davis and his lobbying work. It was made by McCain in the wake of the Keating Five scandal and it’s something he seems to have forgotten. Speaking of the scandal, McCain said:

“The thing I learned was that it’s not only impropriety that counts, it’s the appearance that is just as important.”

And even Goldfarb would have to admit that Davis is causing the campaign all sorts of appearance problems these days.

P.S. My favorite line of Goldfarb’s rebuttal may be this one:

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.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/24/parsing-the-mccain-campaign-s-latest-davis-denial.aspx

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yomi, your thoughts are in line with one of my favorite writers, Victor Davis Hanson. He did a column last week that I’d like to share with you:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson091908.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I’d rather have someone who graduated from the University of Idaho than someone who graduated from Harvard. Why? Because most Harvardites are neutered little doggies.

I graduated from a Western US college. A state college. I’d rather have someone who graduated on my level, that’s above Obama’s paygrade.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Please cite where you read Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School.” — BarbaraS

They keep getting that one wrong. It’s really “Magna cum Saudi”
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=305508174916939

See, also…
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/08/obamas-benefact.html

“Obama’s Years at Columbia Are a Mystery
He Graduated Without Honors”
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/
. . . . snip . . . .
“Why Obama is Mum About Harvard”
The specifics we may never know. As the New York Times concedes, Obama “declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years.”
. . . .
Harvard law School is notoriously difficult to get into. Annually, some 7,000 applications apply for some 500 seats. Applicant LSAT scores generally chart in the 98 to 99 percentile range, and GPAs average between 3.80 and 3.95.

If Obama’s LSAT scores merited admission, we would know about them. We don’t. The Obama camp guards those scores, like his SAT scores, more tightly that Iran does its nuclear secrets.
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=2846

Bottom line, BarbaraS = make sure he shows his hand before you let him take the jackpot.

In short, based on what we know about him, he’s as likely to have graduated “Magna cum Laude” as flying pigs are to wear lipstick.
_______________________________________________

HEADING THE NEXT BIG LIE OFF AT THE PASS

3 “Republicans” have endorsed Obama
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2008/08/three-anti-israel-republicans-support.html

Yeah, 3 anti-Semites:

Jim Leach
Lincoln Chafee
Rita Hauser

With “Republicans” like that, is it any wonder the party’s conservatism is so watered down?

NOTE – I’ve heard that we can add another to the list.

Pat Buchanan

Thanks for admiting who you are, guys. We’ll remember.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

BLITHERING IDIOT

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Wow! Did McCain pick a winner, or what!!” (Yonason)

You better believe it! And guess what? She can do without a telepromter:

PALIN’S TELEPROMTER TROUBLES
Laura Meckler reports from St. Paul, Minn., on the Republican convention.
September 4, 2008, 1:24 pm

When her moment on the national stage arrived last night, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had more to contend with than just nerves. The TelePrompTer that fed her the speech malfunctioned, scrolling too quickly through applause, two senior Republican officials said today.

The result was that the first two lines of each paragraph had already scrolled up by the time she was to deliver them, they said. She had a paper copy of the speech before her, but that version was not the final text.

At one point, crowd signs blocked the TelePrompTer altogether, one official said, prompting her to ad lib one of her best lines of the night: “You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.”

How did Palin react to the moment? “Cool as can be and performance speaks for itself,” a campaign adviser said.

Like or Dislike: 0  0