The McCain campaign is in all-out war with the New York Times.
When it comes to anything remotely political, this paper is neither professional nor trustworthy. They’re the poster child for media bias. I think conservatives are entirely correct about that. I commend the McCain camp for not sucking up to them, and for going after them directly when they make up garbage.
{ 13 comments }
I know it’s not smart politics, and it would be creepy, but I’d love to see the adviser sue the "Paper of record" for libel.
The New York Times has been an unethical, unprofessional, non-journalistic propaganda arm of the Democrat party for as long as I can remember.
If there is a poster child for media bias and unethical journalistic practices, I don’t think you could find a better example than the New York Times.
I get a warm glow every time I hear about another 40% drop in ad or subscription revenues from that rag.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Cosmic’s iPod Sampler?
On a note related to my front page post below – Haaretz is the Israeli equivalent of the New York Times. Just as in the tank for the left as the Times is.
Yet they were upset enough by Hillary’s actions regarding Palin that they printed Palin’s speech in full.
Not Hillary’s.
So, had the New York Times done the Palin piece, we’d all be sitting up because of how out of character it would be for them. We should be doing the same here…
Ok, come on, please. The McCain campaign has just been caught red handed mis-leading the public about their connections to Freddie Mac. Now they are trying to attack the messenger that caught them.
Ok, Rick Davis has not drawn a salary or "compensation" from Davis Manafort, but he still is an owner of the firm. This is a very strange arrangement. Freddie Mac was paying $15,000 a month over 3 years to Davis Manafort, a total of almost $500,000, for nothing. Davis Manafort was apparently not doing anything for Freddie Mac. What on earth did Freddie Mac think it was getting for this money? In all likelyhood they thought they were buy access to McCain and other top Republican figures.
The whole excuse that Rick Davis has not gotten any compensation from Davis Manafort is nonsense. He still owns the firm. He can recieve differed compensation from this in the future.
That is why the McCain campaign is now screaming like crazy, because they have been caught red handed.
Of course there are lots of Democrats that were taking money from Freddie too, so it is no big deal.
mikeca,
Do you have some kind of credible source for that, or are you relying on The New York Times to defend The New York Times?
Dish:
Surely this is exactly what you expected from mike, isn’t it?
Mike has taken Obama’s command to "take it to the enemy" to heart. He’s a good soldier.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Cosmic’s iPod Sampler?
Do you have some kind of credible source for that, or are you relying on The New York Times to defend The New York Times?
Newsweek:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/24/on-davis-s-ties-to-freddie-mac-mccain-gets-boomeranged.aspx
AP:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jnhZ5ehM97b5g022vv1cHSheTh1gD93CV4F80
Basically, when Davis put out a statement earlier this week or last week that he had no connection to Freddie or Fanny since 2005, some Freddie Mac insiders who knew better decided to talk to the press. They appear to have to talked to Mike Isikoff at Newsweek, and an AP reporter as well as NYT reporters.
The McCain denial is a non-denial denial. It is a forceful statement that denies something different than what the NYT article said. The naive reader might believe they are denying what the NYT story said, but they are not.
I haven’t checked the AP article yet, but newsweek seems to be sourcing it’s article on the NY Times as well.
Secondly, they pull the same ‘nefarious’ connection. That is that paying Davis & Manafort = paying Davis even though Davis no longer works there.
If you want to claim that Davis has committed the sin of owning stock in a company that is effected by Fannie Mae, then, well, I’m sure that’s true of most everyone. BFD
Secondly, they pull the same ‘nefarious’ connection. That is that paying Davis & Manafort = paying Davis even though Davis no longer works there.
If you want to claim that Davis has committed the sin of owning stock in a company that is effected by Fannie Mae, then, well, I’m sure that’s true of most everyone. BFD
Who do you think the ‘Davis’ is in Davis & Manafort?
It is not like owning stock in a company. Don’t be naive.
The NY Times got it right in 1999.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
Who do you think the ‘Davis’ is in Davis & Manafort?
The presence of an individual’s name within a company name does not signify any current relationship. For example, Strauss, Wells, Edison and Bell are no longer involved in the companies bearing their names.
The presence of an individual’s name within a company name does not signify any current relationship. For example, Strauss, Wells, Edison and Bell are no longer involved in the companies bearing their names.
Rick Davis is the treasurer and a corporate director of Davis & Manafort.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160713
OK, let’s do the math.
Fannie Mae paid D&M $500k over three years. Typical gross profit margins are around 10%. So D&M made $50k before taxes. Let’s say that corporate taxes are 30% so net profits are $35k. Furthermore, lets say that Davis holds roughly half ownership of D&M and recieved took home about $18k over a 3 year period.
OMG!!!!! Davis made a whopping $6k per year from Fannie Mae!!! HOLY F&CK!NG SHIT BATMAN!
And given he does own half the company he probably isn’t making middle class wages either. He’s probably pulling in some serious cheese. Let’s say he’s making $500k/year.Â
You really mean to tell me that Davis pulling in a GINORMOUS 1% of his income from Fannie makes him every bit dirty as Fannie Mae’s frakin Chairman? Really?
Comments on this entry are closed.