McCain's New Target: The New York Times
| Mon Sep. 22, 2008 9:00 AM PDT
On a conference call with reporters on Monday morning, Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, and Steve Schmidt, a top McCain strategist, were asked about a New York Times article reporting that Davis had been paid nearly $2 million for running a Washington outfit set up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to stop stricter regulation of these two entities. Davis said he had never engaged in any lobbying for that group and downplayed Fannie and Freddie's role in the organization. He joked that he appreciated "all the exposure I get" in The New York Times. He added that the newspaper must have "Davis envy."
Schmidt then went bad-cop. "We're First Amendment absolutists," he said, noting journalists are free to "write whatever they want to write." But, he continued, "whatever the New York Times once was," it is no longer a journalistic entity. Schmidt called it a "pro-Obama advocacy organization" and claimed the paper "attacks" McCain every day. Schmidt went on: the Times is "an organization completely, totally 150-percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate" and has "cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition" to get McCain.
It was a blistering slam. And several times throughout the call, Schmidt chided the media for treating Obama more kindly than McCain. (In recent weeks, many news outlets have scored McCain's ads as being full of falsehoods.) Clearly, the candidate who once was beloved by the national media (and who joked the press was his base) has calculated that the old Republican play of bashing the media, especially The New York Times, will help him get elected. Also, Schmidt might also have been trying to establish a context for judging any future Times investigations that might pose a problem for McCain. ("See? I told you they were out to destroy Senator McCain.")
By the way, neither Davis nor Schmidt pointed out one error in the Times' story about Davis.
Photo by flickr user Joe Shlabotnik used under a Creative Commons license.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Is Trig at the Heart of Media's Reaction to Palin?
Mona Charen Tue Sep 9, 3:00 AM ET
There were basically two things known about Sarah Palin when her name was announced on Aug. 29 and the media sphere began to shudder and pulsate: She was a recently elected governor and the mother of five children including a handicapped infant. The scorn from the mainstream press and the left-leaning blog world was both intense and instantaneous. Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic immediately began circulating rumors that Trig was not the governor's baby ? that she had engaged in a huge charade to cover up her teen daughter's illegitimate child. The New York Times reported on the front page that Palin had been a member of the Alaska Independence Party. Eleanor Clift of Newsweek described the reaction of most newsrooms to Palin's elevation as "literally laughter." US Weekly rushed out a cover story picturing Palin holding her baby son with the headline "Babies, Lies, & Scandal."
And that was just the throat-clearing phase. NBC's Brian Williams wondered whether she could discharge her responsibilities with all those kids. Sally Quinn of the Washington Post asked, "Will she put her country first, or will she put her family first?" Mort Kondracke called her a "wacko right-winger."
Now it hardly needs mentioning that Brian Williams and company would sew their own lips closed before ever uttering such heresy about a liberal woman candidate. Nor would it even occur to them to question any male candidate's fitness because of the number of children he had.
How do the media poobahs explain it? They say (and to her credit, Sally Quinn has apologized for her comments) that it was Palin's inexperience that prompted their contempt. But aren't these the same people who had just the week before been defending Barack Obama's thin resume?
Something about Sarah Palin set them off before their own politically correct impulses ("Must Avoid Sexism") could inhibit them. By the ferocity of the response, you might have thought Palin was a secret member of a polygamous cult or had forced her daughter to give birth after a rape. But no, she was just the mother of five, hunting, fishing, NRA member, and governor.
I wonder if it was that baby.
Sarah Palin is no ordinary pro-lifer. She is an attractive, intelligent, ambitious, successful woman who has actually lived her convictions. Told that the baby she was carrying would be handicapped with Down syndrome, she and her husband made the only decision their consciences would permit ? to welcome this child with the same love they would give to any other. That decision is comparatively rare in America. Fully 80 percent of parents who receive a diagnosis of Down syndrome in their unborn children elect to abort. But it's not unusual at all among committed pro-lifers. I have met many in the course of speaking to pro-life audiences. And for every couple that has chosen life for a handicapped child, there are thousands and perhaps millions more who have abjured prenatal testing because under no circumstances would they abort their children. I cannot count the times I've amazed pro-choice people with the news that there are even waiting lists of couples who stand ready to adopt Down syndrome babies.
The example of people living their principles by embarking on the undeniably difficult path of raising a handicapped child is a hard one to dismiss. In fact, it's hard not to admire. Don't most of us, deep down, really think that the most humane and honorable thing is to treat all life as sacred? Even if you are not religious or have no belief in God ? doesn't it appeal to an enlightened humanism to give support and love to the handicapped? In fact, most pro-choice people probably treat the handicapped with terrific compassion and care. They doubtless support civil rights legislation like the Americans with Disabilities Act, additional school spending, and generous Social Security benefits. They'd be the first to hold the door for someone in a wheelchair, and they'd be friendly toward anyone with obvious mental retardation.
But for themselves, they would abort. And there stands Sarah, Trig Palin in her arms, a beautiful ambassador for the path of humility, duty, honor, and grace. It's no wonder she was in their crosshairs from the get go.
To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Is Trig at the Heart of Media's Reaction to Palin?
Mona Charen Tue Sep 9, 3:00 AM ET
There were basically two things known about Sarah Palin when her name was announced on Aug. 29 and the media sphere began to shudder and pulsate: She was a recently elected governor and the mother of five children including a handicapped infant. The scorn from the mainstream press and the left-leaning blog world was both intense and instantaneous. Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic immediately began circulating rumors that Trig was not the governor's baby ? that she had engaged in a huge charade to cover up her teen daughter's illegitimate child. The New York Times reported on the front page that Palin had been a member of the Alaska Independence Party. Eleanor Clift of Newsweek described the reaction of most newsrooms to Palin's elevation as "literally laughter." US Weekly rushed out a cover story picturing Palin holding her baby son with the headline "Babies, Lies, & Scandal."
And that was just the throat-clearing phase. NBC's Brian Williams wondered whether she could discharge her responsibilities with all those kids. Sally Quinn of the Washington Post asked, "Will she put her country first, or will she put her family first?" Mort Kondracke called her a "wacko right-winger."
Now it hardly needs mentioning that Brian Williams and company would sew their own lips closed before ever uttering such heresy about a liberal woman candidate. Nor would it even occur to them to question any male candidate's fitness because of the number of children he had.
How do the media poobahs explain it? They say (and to her credit, Sally Quinn has apologized for her comments) that it was Palin's inexperience that prompted their contempt. But aren't these the same people who had just the week before been defending Barack Obama's thin resume?
Something about Sarah Palin set them off before their own politically correct impulses ("Must Avoid Sexism") could inhibit them. By the ferocity of the response, you might have thought Palin was a secret member of a polygamous cult or had forced her daughter to give birth after a rape. But no, she was just the mother of five, hunting, fishing, NRA member, and governor.
I wonder if it was that baby.
Sarah Palin is no ordinary pro-lifer. She is an attractive, intelligent, ambitious, successful woman who has actually lived her convictions. Told that the baby she was carrying would be handicapped with Down syndrome, she and her husband made the only decision their consciences would permit ? to welcome this child with the same love they would give to any other. That decision is comparatively rare in America. Fully 80 percent of parents who receive a diagnosis of Down syndrome in their unborn children elect to abort. But it's not unusual at all among committed pro-lifers. I have met many in the course of speaking to pro-life audiences. And for every couple that has chosen life for a handicapped child, there are thousands and perhaps millions more who have abjured prenatal testing because under no circumstances would they abort their children. I cannot count the times I've amazed pro-choice people with the news that there are even waiting lists of couples who stand ready to adopt Down syndrome babies.
The example of people living their principles by embarking on the undeniably difficult path of raising a handicapped child is a hard one to dismiss. In fact, it's hard not to admire. Don't most of us, deep down, really think that the most humane and honorable thing is to treat all life as sacred? Even if you are not religious or have no belief in God ? doesn't it appeal to an enlightened humanism to give support and love to the handicapped? In fact, most pro-choice people probably treat the handicapped with terrific compassion and care. They doubtless support civil rights legislation like the Americans with Disabilities Act, additional school spending, and generous Social Security benefits. They'd be the first to hold the door for someone in a wheelchair, and they'd be friendly toward anyone with obvious mental retardation.
But for themselves, they would abort. And there stands Sarah, Trig Palin in her arms, a beautiful ambassador for the path of humility, duty, honor, and grace. It's no wonder she was in their crosshairs from the get go.
To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
For many years, the NY Times
Submitted by york (not verified) on Thu Jul. 16, 2009 8:10 AM PDT.
For many years, the NY Times has indeed departed from anything resembling balanced journalism. Many of us look forward to the Gray Lady's retirement, and hope that she and the Washington Post may keep each other company while they reminisce.
"By the way, neither Davis nor Schmidt pointed out one error in the Times' story about Davis."
Obviously the error the Times made was printing some facts. The McCain campaign hates that. Printing facts clearly shows the NYT's nasty bias against McCain.
For many years, the NY Times has indeed departed from anything resembling balanced journalism. Many of us look forward to the Gray Lady's retirement, and hope that she and the Washington Post may keep each other company while they reminisce.
It seems that the candidate with the most to hide often attacks the media to both confuse the public and distract from issue in controversy; a common political strategy. Nevertheless I remain concerned that the mainstream media will fold, for fear of losing market share and/or profit, and tacitly allow a discounting of the truth by allowing it to be reported as mere campaign spin. Unlike what happened during the lead up to the second Iraq War, we need strong, fact-based, sourced journalism. Not profit-based, non-informative political-entertainment news.
Mcsame has demonstrated not one iota of journalistic OR any other kind of integrity since this campaign began. He has told the filthiest, stinking lies I have ever heard from a candidate. It is obvious the mcsame/failin ticket will do ANYthing to get elected - they are lower than snakes' bellies, both of them. A look at their records clearly demonstrates they have no interest in middle class America. They are interested in furthering, and EXCEEDING, the excesses of the bush administration to line their own and their rich friends' pockets at the expense of the taxpayer.
Is Trig at the Heart of Media's Reaction to Palin?
Mona Charen Tue Sep 9, 3:00 AM ET
There were basically two things known about Sarah Palin when her name was announced on Aug. 29 and the media sphere began to shudder and pulsate: She was a recently elected governor and the mother of five children including a handicapped infant. The scorn from the mainstream press and the left-leaning blog world was both intense and instantaneous. Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic immediately began circulating rumors that Trig was not the governor's baby that she had engaged in a huge charade to cover up her teen daughter's illegitimate child. The New York Times reported on the front page that Palin had been a member of the Alaska Independence Party. Eleanor Clift of Newsweek described the reaction of most newsrooms to Palin's elevation as "literally laughter." US Weekly rushed out a cover story picturing Palin holding her baby son with the headline "Babies, Lies, & Scandal."
And that was just the throat-clearing phase. NBC's Brian Williams wondered whether she could discharge her responsibilities with all those kids. Sally Quinn of the Washington Post asked, "Will she put her country first, or will she put her family first?" Mort Kondracke called her a "wacko right-winger."
Now it hardly needs mentioning that Brian Williams and company would sew their own lips closed before ever uttering such heresy about a liberal woman candidate. Nor would it even occur to them to question any male candidate's fitness because of the number of children he had.
How do the media poobahs explain it? They say (and to her credit, Sally Quinn has apologized for her comments) that it was Palin's inexperience that prompted their contempt. But aren't these the same people who had just the week before been defending Barack Obama's thin resume?
Something about Sarah Palin set them off before their own politically correct impulses ("Must Avoid Sexism") could inhibit them. By the ferocity of the response, you might have thought Palin was a secret member of a polygamous cult or had forced her daughter to give birth after a rape. But no, she was just the mother of five, hunting, fishing, NRA member, and governor.
I wonder if it was that baby.
Sarah Palin is no ordinary pro-lifer. She is an attractive, intelligent, ambitious, successful woman who has actually lived her convictions. Told that the baby she was carrying would be handicapped with Down syndrome, she and her husband made the only decision their consciences would permit to welcome this child with the same love they would give to any other. That decision is comparatively rare in America. Fully 80 percent of parents who receive a diagnosis of Down syndrome in their unborn children elect to abort. But it's not unusual at all among committed pro-lifers. I have met many in the course of speaking to pro-life audiences. And for every couple that has chosen life for a handicapped child, there are thousands and perhaps millions more who have abjured prenatal testing because under no circumstances would they abort their children. I cannot count the times I've amazed pro-choice people with the news that there are even waiting lists of couples who stand ready to adopt Down syndrome babies.
The example of people living their principles by embarking on the undeniably difficult path of raising a handicapped child is a hard one to dismiss. In fact, it's hard not to admire. Don't most of us, deep down, really think that the most humane and honorable thing is to treat all life as sacred? Even if you are not religious or have no belief in God doesn't it appeal to an enlightened humanism to give support and love to the handicapped? In fact, most pro-choice people probably treat the handicapped with terrific compassion and care. They doubtless support civil rights legislation like the Americans with Disabilities Act, additional school spending, and generous Social Security benefits. They'd be the first to hold the door for someone in a wheelchair, and they'd be friendly toward anyone with obvious mental retardation.
But for themselves, they would abort. And there stands Sarah, Trig Palin in her arms, a beautiful ambassador for the path of humility, duty, honor, and grace. It's no wonder she was in their crosshairs from the get go.
To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Let's call it 'advocacy journalism' and claim responsibility for it as American Citizens.
All the sensationalism, negativity, and political posturing are a result of the degradation of core values. The answer to restoring lost values is to restore them within ourselves first. IF YOU WANT RESPECT - SHOW RESPECT, for yourself and everyone around you. Our family, our neighbors, our media, our leaders will reflect our expectations. This is a Government 'by the people and for the people', meaning, Americans must set the standard for our leaders, not the other way around. Our Government is a mirror image of US. No leader can save us, we must save ourselves.
Let's call it the 'duty of citizenship'.
We should have the courage to rebuke those around us who fail to live up to a certain standard, and hold those with influence responsible for their actions. We all share what was formerly the one of the greatest honors of all - to be called an AMERICAN. We will lose this honor if we can't stop blaming everyone else, and start holding ourselves to a higher standard. Finger pointing is an act of cowardice and before you jump on the bandwagon and blame McCain, you had better go look in the mirror FIRST.
Unfortunately, McCain's strategy to frighten the media into giving him more favorable coverage - lest they be pinned with the baseless tag of showing a liberal bias - worked. This morning's page 1 Times article on McCain's prep for the debates reads like it was written by McCain's campaign manager. The first paragraph reads "Senator John McCain heads into the first presidential dabate with a track record as a scrappy combatant with the instincts of a fighter pilot, prepared to take out his opponent and willing to take risks". Meanwhile the first paragraph on Obama's debate prep reads "Senator Barack Obama has shown himself at times to be a great orator. His debating skills, however, have been uneven."
The lesson, learned from Hillary, is to complain about the media unfairly favoring Obama and you will immediately reap rewards because the spineless media, particularly the New York Times, is more fearful of being labeled liberal than it is dedicated to its responsibilities as journalists.
So you are lecturing us on morals. Let me ask you is there a moral thing about misrepresenting yourself as "The Democrat?" More distraction. This article is about the party of moral giants making accusations of bias without being able to refute facts. your post has nothing to do with the article in question. It has the feel of something you just send out to every blog that tries to speak truth to power. This is the same straw man tactic conservatives have been using over and over again. Can you name one reputable blogger, commentator or news source that is against Palin because she did not abort her baby? Or do they only exist on the planet Evangelical Republicana? Is not the argument not with the choice Palin made but that she wants to dictate everyone's choice? If you really want to discuss MORALS here I am sure that the readers of this site would be more than happy to discuss the morals or lack thereof of your candidate, party and religion not just in this election but for as far back as we can go. May I suggest you and yours stay out of a discussion of morals. Go back to Obama is a Muslim, it's safer.
In 2003, what was involved in the " Administration-wide effort to bring new tools and resources to would-be homeowners." ?
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 13, 2003
National Homeownership Month, 2003
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Homeownership is more than just a symbol of the American Dream; it is an important part of our way of life. Core American values of individuality, thrift, responsibility, and self-reliance are embodied in homeownership. I am committed to helping more families know the security and sense of pride that comes with owning a home.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is leading an Administration-wide effort to bring new tools and resources to would-be homeowners. We are providing financial assistance to qualified families through the American Dream Downpayment Fund, funding educational programs that stress financial literacy, and offering a compassionate hand to those who dream of moving from subsidized housing into homeownership. And through the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program, my Administration partners with nonprofit organizations that offer homeownership oppor-tunities to families willing to contribute their skills and labor to help build a home of their own. We are also proposing ways to make it easier to shop for a mortgage and to make mortgages available to more families through the Federal Housing Administration.
Today, the United States is fortunate in that our homeownership rate is at an all-time high, and low interest rates continue to encourage millions of Americans to become first-time homeowners. Although a record number of Americans own their own homes, we continue to see a gap between the homeowner-ship rates of minorities and nonminorities. By a significant margin, minority families are less likely to own their own homes. Therefore, I have called upon the entire housing industry to join with my Administration to expand minority homeownership across the Nation. Our goal is to help at least 5.5 million minority families become homeowners by the end of this decade, and our Blueprint for the American Dream Partnership is taking bold steps to make this a reality.
To claim that there were no disputes about the article is palpably untrue. The McCain campaign has pushed back forcefully that Davis has not been a lobbyist for Fannie or Freddie during the times mentioned, that he hasn't been registered as a lobbyist since 2005, that he has earned no money from his former firm either in salary or in partner compensation, and other than that -- and that the NYT story is entirely based on anonymous sources -- other than that, they apparently have no factual gripes with the Times.
Never mind that McCain has taken a very aggressive position (as has President Bush since 2002) in attempting to rein in the excesses of Freddie and Fannie that led to the bubble in housing prices, the article would imply that McCain has been influenced by the alleged conflict of interest by Mr. Davis.
If Fannie and Freddie were counting on a return on their investments in Davis' old firm in the form of changes in McCain's position, then that may explain their entire failure. They apparently haven't been able to gauge the value of much in recent years.
As for an investigation of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who ran cover for F&F over the years and in fact made it possible for them to engage in the recent shenanigans -- all with a taxpayer backing -- the Times apparently hasn't got a reporter to spare for that story. Too busy cooking up lies about McCain and Palin, I guess.
You are right Baskerville, I believe I've read "The Democrat's" blog more then once before here at MJ blogville; it's a repeated blog thrown out at any opportunity with no relevance whatsoever to the current article, or any other story for that matter.
The McCain/Palin ticket is at war with the media. What do they want? State controlled propaganda blandly parroted by unthinking, uncritical instruments of the government? Journalists and journalism are central to any Democracy. If how the candidates run their campaign is an indication of what their Presidency will be like, the McCain/Palin ticket is not taking a stand for transparency.
Gov Palin, not specifically mentioned in David Corn's blog, is worthy of further discussion by the media. Her knowledge of national issues is poor for someone aspiring to the office of Vice President. Her values are bear further comment. Her stand on abortion is well known. It's different from mine. This is not a discussion about the sanctity of human life. It's about whether the government has a right to determine what goes on in a woman's body. Sarah Palin thinks it does. It's about if, god forbid, your mother or daughter or best friend has been raped or is the victim of incest whether they should be victimized further by being forced to carry a child to term. Sarah Palin thinks they should. It's about whether a sister or a cousin whose life is threatened by medical issues associated with a pregnancy should not be given an opportunity for life. Sarah Palin is okay with their death. It's about the 80% of couples who make a difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy when they realize that child will live with Downs Syndrome. Sarah Palin wants to take that choice away. I believe in the sanctity of life. That's why I believe women and men should be duly educated about birth control methods to prevent pregnancy and that when a difficult decision is reached to abort a pregnancy, an abortion should be performed as close to conception as possible. Sarah Palin made a choice to give birth to and raise Trig despite his handicap. That means she's willing to live by her convictions. I respect that. Nothing the Democrats want to put in place would take that choice away from her but her values would give Government the right to make choices for everyone.
She is being presented as someone for women's issues but is against equal pay for equal work for women. She's against programs for after care or special education. She's for continued tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy - which certainly we all would buy into if we were better off after the last 8 years of trickle-down economics.
The McCain/Palin ticket certainly realizes through polling that their views are dissected at any level below the talking point become unpalatable to most Americans. This is why we they try to divert us from these very issues to talk about lipstick on pigs or why the media is unfair. Their stand can't be subjected to scrutiny or they'll lose the election. They certainly should.
No doubt those looking forward to the collapse of the "Gray Lady" were also anxiously awaiting the assassinations of Ghandi and King, the overthrow of Allende and Mossadegh as well the disenfranchisement of anyone sympathetic with a progressive cause (read Greg Palast for a chilling description of modern day Jim Crow intimidation).
I've seen the ads by the McCain/Palin campaign. They were nothing but lies, distortions and the same old anti-Democrat line of crap. It's the same old line from the Republican camp. Lie, lie, lie. Even if the truth comes out they have already got the lies into peoples heads. Media and election reform. It's the only way we'll begin to get the democracy we all so desperately long for. Which is why it's fought so hard against by the McCains and Schmidts of the world.
Submitted by Carol (not verified) on Thu Sep. 25, 2008 7:34 AM PDT.
"Democrat"...you almost had it when you said she's a member of a polygamist cult. She's a member of a cult, all right, but it's not based on polygamy; it's based on driving out demons by any means necessary and a world view that wants to bring on Armageddon. Her church is so lunatic-fringe it was dumped by the Assemblies of God. She thinks she's a member of a select few who are going to save the world from itself, and if you oppose this view, you're in league with Satan himself. So, does this remind you of anyone in office right now? Anyone?
Oh, and about the pro-life thingy: are you only pro-life for fetuses, or do you include the actually born, like our soldiers and the victims of 9/11? Don't they have some right to life, too?
Submitted by Carol (not verified) on Thu Sep. 25, 2008 7:38 AM PDT.
John, there are many of us who have felt it our patriotic duty for the past 8 years to point out the lies that were told to "win" the previous two elections, the lies surrounding 9/11, and the lies that led us into war with Iraq. Now, we're being lied to again, and I, for one, will damn well point fingers if I choose to, because it is my patriotic duty to do so. Bush/Cheney are liars. John McCain is a liar. There you go.
Submitted by Carol (not verified) on Thu Sep. 25, 2008 7:49 AM PDT.
A3K, please do your homework and have it ready for class tomorrow. For you research, go to Mother Jones and find the Bush timeline. Then go to Vietnam Veterans Against McCain. See you tomorrow!
