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.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Best Headline On The McCain Campaign’s Hysterical Response To The Fannie-Mae/Rick Davis Story
September 24th, 2008
14 Comments
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?
Unfortunately, it appears Ben Smith is taking reading comprehension lessons from the left-wingers at your blog. Smith writes:
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:
And more specifically, this:
The McCain camp denied that in the strongest of terms.
Smith is wrong on this one.
Yes, no involvement besides… owning the freaking company.
playing the Bircherite “liberal media” card. How mavericky
Here’s what the McCain campaign actually said:
So, where’s the weaselling? Where’s the loophole? Where’s the catch? Seems pretty absolute to me.
J.
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.
Hello? What was your headline again?
Obviously, Oliver took what he read in the NYT and “changed that to Davis himself in order to” lie about what the NYT wrote?
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.
I still don’t see the wiggle room:
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.
I mean, it’s not as if John and Cindy are close.
Then we agree that Oliver misrepresented the facts in his headline. Thank you.
“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.
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.
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.
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.