It’s war now….I figured the McCain camp would hit the NYT’s once and then leave it alone but Michael Goldfarb from the campaign has come out swinging again today, and he doesn’t hold back:
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.
Chad at Ace of Spades HQ doesn’t think McCain can win this fight….and he may be right. But to do nothing as complete falsehoods are printed while stories about Obama are not even reported on would help nothing. The MSM has been successful in shaping stories and campaigns in the past but as we found out by the Swiftboat truthtellers, fighting against the bias CAN work to get the truth out. This kind of stuff needs to keep happening because, as Stuart Taylor wrote recently, “The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis.”
On another note, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air participated in a conference call with McCain’s staff which had their lead pollster to go over the recent polls:
McInturff says that the data has been remarkably stable throughout the month, despite the “extraordinary” events of the last couple of weeks. That’s true on a national basis as well as by state. A dozen states remain in the margin of error. McInturff looked at those states on a week-by-week basis, and it shows McCain weakening by two points in three weeks — well within the margins of error.
He then addressed the WaPo/ABC poll, and started it by giving us a quick rundown of his own experiences in media polling. He says the people who ran this survey “professionals” and “very competent”, but this is clearly an outlier. McInturff points out the same 16-point difference between Democrats and Republicans as an indication that their sample is far out of tolerance. It should be somewhere between four and nine points, and nothing anywhere indicates a sixteen-point gap in party identification. In fact, we’ve never seen this kind of gap in at least 25 years of polling, not even in 1992 or 2006, two difficult years for Republicans. They’re expecting a five-point gap.
Bottom line: this poll was an outlier, and they’re discounting it.
Giving the news over the last week these close polls give us many reasons to be happy about the campaign.
Bring on the debates!

See author page
The best part of Goldfarb’s piece was lumping the NYT in with the HuffPo.
Someone needs to buy out the NYT big time…
2006 is SOOOO long ago, isn’t it?
Sam, “Mr. Davis has never — never — been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.”
And the newspaper wants to know why its readership keeps falling. If they are manipulating political information, what other information are they manipulating? Nobody wants to buy a paper suppying false information. That’s what gossip tabloids are for.
Here: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/24/on-davis-s-ties-to-freddie-mac-mccain-gets-boomeranged.aspx
Call newsweek liars also. In fact call anyone and everyone who contracts your sanctimoniuos worshipping of a candidate who still thinks we are fighting the cold war a liar. This is absurd. Everyone knows it is almost impossible to escape lobbbyists in washington dc, and the mccain campaign is no different. When it comes to lobbyist influence, you should not compare mccain to obama, as the former will always lose. there are better grounds to fight.
Sam,
What Kool-Aid flavor is your favorite?
I think Chad, from Ace of Spades, has got it right:
In the end, if you can’t get the press behind you, there is good reason you may lose the election.
We’re told that we can’t criticize Obama for his ties to Raines and Johnson who ran Fannie Mae into the ground because they are not on the ballot.
Shouldn’t the same apply here?
Meanwhile, there is no disputing that Obama took $126,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in less than four years and McCain took less than $22,000 in over twenty years.
Match that up with McCain’s record of supporting reform of Fannie and Freddie and Obama spending all this time at the bank cashing the checks and we know where the blame lies.
When it comes to who is the real reformer, we have the ultimate source for the answer:
Do you want to see what it gives when Obama speaks without a teleprompter?
SEE this new video:
http://www.antagoniste.net/?p=4120
Oh my God, Obama is an idiot. Give me a break. In terms of intellect mccain is not on obama’s level. do you also want to know who can’t tell that czechoslavakia is no longer a nation or that iraq and pakistan don’t share a border or that hot bottled water can feed starving kids in africa?
just ask mccain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DqR7zis99I
Hey Sam! Obama doesn’t even know how many States the US have. And he thinks they speak Arab in Iran. And he wants to bomb Pakistan, an allies who has nuclear facilities. Obama is a complete idiot.
yea, i suppose you define an idiot as a magna cum laude graduate of harvard law school and a genius as fifth bottom of hisclass at the naval academy. get your head out of your ass
You’re right:
Another:
How many states are there again?
Obama comments further on US geography:
“What it says is that I’m not very well known in that part of the country[Kentucky],” Obama said. “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known — not only because of her time in the White House with her husband — but also coming from a nearby state of Arkansas.”
Um… Illinois borders Kentucky.
Sam,
I was watching you from work and was looking forward having a nice one on one with you.
It’s a real shame you got yourself banninated before I had a chance.
All that foreplay wasted.
Oh well, your loss.
Obama did not enter Harvard on his own merits..he was accepted because his father graduated from there. So for the so-called genious… think again Sam!
Craig
Obama idid not enter Harvard because his father graduated from there. Proment people were asked to write letters recommending hlm for admittance.
Therefore, it would be interesting to know who sent him. He is obviously a sleeper.
Sam
Please cite where you read Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School. He refuses to submit his grades or anything else from any college. He has admitted he used cocaine at Columbia. Since he used cocaine on a regular basis per his words his brain is fried and he is not the intellectual you say he is.
Obambi has released no records of any kind. We know more about sasquatch then Obambi, and the NYT doesn’t care to even try to find out. Magna cum horse manure is more like it.
NEED ANY MORE AMMUNITION?
Remember when Obamalamadingdong said that McCain/Palin were touting themselves as the real candidates for real “change” to copy the Dizzy Dems? Well, here’s a flashback from FOX news
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0IoCyqUAoA&feature=related
Guess what!! Palin was elected on a platform of change. And, guess what else!! When asked, “What did she accomplish” a fellow Wassillan ticked off more than 4 major things she did, and that was just as mayor. Wow! Did McCain pick a winner, or what!!
“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.
BLITHERING IDIOT
“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
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.
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.
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
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):
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/24/parsing-the-mccain-campaign-s-latest-davis-denial.aspx
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
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…
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.
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.