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