Update below this post – very much in line with what I noted about taking anything from the New York Times with a grain of salt – McCain’s campaign went ballistic on the New York Times for the article discussed below.
————————————-
Last week I posted some information and links that showed the close and very profitable relationship that Obama had with the people in charge of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failure. While the Obama campaign is attempting to distance itself from Franklin Raines, it is clear that he was (and remains) very close to Jim Johnson — who headed up Fannie from 91-98.
In that post, I noted that over the past decade, Obama had personally received $126,349 from people or PACs that were directly linked to Freddie and Fannie (since Obama has only really been on the federal political scene for about three short years (two of those were spent campaigning for the Presidency), he received those donations in a few months to three years), I did not, however, list the ties and funds that McCain had received. To even the record, from 1989 – 2008 McCain received $21,550 from individuals related to the two mortgage giants.
This NY Times article (take it with a grain of salt – the NY Times is well known for its overwhelming pro-Obama/anti-Republican bias) discusses the well-funded lobbying position that McCain’s campaign manager occupied for five years (from 2000-2005). According to the article,
(Rick Davis) … was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.
Despite the NY Times’ well-established trend of advocating on behalf of Obama and against McCain, the article does admit — after the eye-catching headline and introductory sentences — that the McCain campaign openly admitted Davis previous involvement with the group and noted that he has had no involvement with either Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae since the advocacy group was disbanded in ’05. The article also admits that while Davis was working with the group, McCain had supported legislation that would have increased regulation and oversight of Freddie and Fannie accounting procedures and their executive compensation packages.
The article also admits that Davis was hired as more of a figure head, that “he didn’t really do anything,” and that the monies were paid to the company, instead of Mr. Davis directly. Davis’ personal compensation from the venture is described as being “not unusual for the companies’ well-connected consultants.”
So the financial and political links to the mortgage scandal are clearly not as deeply embedded in the McCain campaign as they are in the Obama campaign. However, the fact that the scandals, and the costs taxpayers will bear because of them, cross party lines is also clear.
I’m not sure that the Republican side being only a little involved in corruption and scandal on this scale is all that reassuring.
————————————
Update – McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt has gone after the New York Times in a huge way. The quote is absolutely priceless and puts into words the feelings of many (if not most) Americans. The media has primarily become a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. They really have almost no credibility left except as a tool to promote Democratic talking points.
Let me first say we are First Amendment absolutists on this campaign. The press and anybody who wishes to cover this race from a blogosphere perspective or from a media perspective is of course constitutionally protected with regard to writing whatever they want to write.
But let’s be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race, which is this: Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by an standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin, and excuses Sen. Obama. There is no level of public vetting with regard to Sen. Obama’s record, his background, his past statements. There is no level of outrage directed at his deceitful ads. This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let’s not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is. Everything that is read in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective, that it is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition to advocate for the defeat of one candidate, in this case John McCain, and advocate for the election of the other candidate, Barack Obama.
Here’s the audio of the Schmidt quote.
Allahpundit’s second point about an employee of the co-author of McCain-Feingold calling themselves “First Amendment absolutists” is spot on. At best that is a grotesque abuse of the English language (to say nothing of our rights to free speech).
