Breaking News
Hurricane Ida Targets US Gulf Coast

Best Headline On The McCain Campaign’s Hysterical Response To The Fannie-Mae/Rick Davis Story

September 24th, 2008 14 Comments

Goes to Ben Smith of The Politico (who, God knows, I have regularly given a hard time):

“McCain camp attacks Times, doesn’t deny report”

Of course, for the McCain campaign that is a feature, not a bug.

Posted in John McCain, Media, Media For McCain |
« Blame The Poor, Blame The Minorities
The Great Debater »
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

14 Responses to “Best Headline On The McCain Campaign’s Hysterical Response To The Fannie-Mae/Rick Davis Story”

  1. JWG says:
    September 24, 2008 at 11:18 am

    You cited the NYT article and posted a headline declaring:
    McCain Campaign Manager Paid By Fannie Mae As Recent As Last Month
    This statement was a lie. From where did you get the idea to print this lie?

  2. Jay says:
    September 24, 2008 at 11:39 am

    Unfortunately, it appears Ben Smith is taking reading comprehension lessons from the left-wingers at your blog. Smith writes:

    What the statement doesn’t dispute is the actual news in the story: the $15,000 monthly payments from Freddie Mac, which began while Davis was still running the firm.

    That’s not the actual news, and the McCain camp is not denying that portion of it. The NY Times made the following statement the “news” in the story:

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

    And more specifically, this:

    Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis Manafort for the presidential campaign, but as an equity holder continues to benefit from its income.

    The McCain camp denied that in the strongest of terms.

    Smith is wrong on this one.

  3. Oliver Willis says:
    September 24, 2008 at 11:58 am

    Yes, no involvement besides… owning the freaking company.

  4. jr says:
    September 24, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    playing the Bircherite “liberal media” card. How mavericky

  5. Jay Tea says:
    September 24, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    Here’s what the McCain campaign actually said:

    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.

    So, where’s the weaselling? Where’s the loophole? Where’s the catch? Seems pretty absolute to me.

    J.

  6. Oliver Willis says:
    September 24, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    Because the McCain campaign transmutes what the NY Times report said. The NY Times very carefully said that the firm owned by Davis was in Fannie Mae’s employ. The McCain campaign changed that to Davis himself in order to weasel out of it.

    I mean, its not likely Rick Davis would return to a company he co-owns after the campaign, right? Riiiight.

  7. JWG says:
    September 24, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    The McCain campaign changed that to Davis himself in order to weasel out of it.

    Hello? What was your headline again?

    McCain Campaign Manager Paid By Fannie Mae

    Obviously, Oliver took what he read in the NYT and “changed that to Davis himself in order to” lie about what the NYT wrote?

  8. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    September 24, 2008 at 1:07 pm

    Yeah, he wasn’t paid directly. It was just the company he owned that was paid directly. There’s absolutely no way he could benefit from his company being paid. Making that distinction is in no way weaseling out of the situation.

    No, no, no. McCain is clearly in the right here.

  9. Jay Tea says:
    September 24, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    I still don’t see the wiggle room:

    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.

    No income, no salary, no compensation, no profit distribution, no partner distribution, no equity — sounds like they got all their bases covered.

    And one must understand that Oliver has a little problem with the truth when it comes to talking about John McCain. “How many houses do John and Cindy McCain own” becomes “she owns seven, he none” becomes “John McCain doesn’t know he owns seven homes.” “How many cars do they own” becomes “he owns one, she owns 12 — including three electric scooters” becomes “he owns 13.”

    Some might call it lying. I prefer the term “reality-impaired.”

    J.

  10. Nimrod Gently says:
    September 24, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    I mean, it’s not as if John and Cindy are close.

  11. JWG says:
    September 24, 2008 at 1:57 pm

    Yeah, he wasn’t paid directly

    Then we agree that Oliver misrepresented the facts in his headline. Thank you.

  12. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    September 24, 2008 at 2:06 pm

    “Then we agree that Oliver misrepresented the facts in his headline. Thank you.”

    Good god, you are a fucking retard.

    The company he OWNS was paid. Therefore, he was paid.

  13. Sean D. Martin says:
    September 24, 2008 at 2:30 pm

    CSS: The company he OWNS was paid. Therefore, he was paid.

    From the McCain campaign statements, which I don’t think anyone has actually refuted, it looks like he wasn’t actually paid. But you are right in that he does own the company so clearly he will benefit. If not now then, as OW notes, later.

  14. JWG says:
    September 24, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    So Davis isn’t and hasn’t been paid by Fannie Mae, but someone in the company he owns was paid. Davis hasn’t had any financial relationship with the company for at least 2 years. Somehow this means that McCain will be influenced “in his position as a senator or in the unfortunate chance he was elected president.”

    Yeah, Oliver’s really got McCain nailed on this one. McCain will be no better than a puppet in the hands of Fannie Mae with these tight connections.

    Good god, you are a…retard.

    Yeah, Oliver criticizes McCain for changing the article’s focus from the company “to Davis himself” after Oliver had ALREADY changed the accusation to Davis specifically. But I’m the one with brain damage. Wow.