Thanks, Jonathan Martin

Reading Jonathan Martin’s blog at Politico has been one of my more pleasant daily rituals, but, alas, he’s taken the “Change” meme to heart and has brought his blog to a close.

Dang

Rumor Central: Obama, Emanuel, and Conflicting Conspiracies

Ben Smith headlines an item “Internet Rumor Meltdown,”in which a reader explains that a relative believes:

1) President-Elect Obama is a “closet Muslim”
and
2) President-Elect Obama’s white House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, “is a top Mossad double agent.”

Delightful.

Politico: Top Ten Campaign Season Videos

Loads of similar lists are appearing all over; here's Politico's. "Yes We Can" tops it.

Recommended Read: On McCain & Media Bias

For "Why McCain is Getting Hosed in the Press" at Politico, go here.

Added: Readers' responses to the story. Pretty impassioned.

McCain Camp Goes After the NYT & Politico.

Today John McCain’s campaign blew off the New York Times and Politico. Why? Because the Times exposed McCain advisor Rick Davis’s role as an "advocate" for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and because Politico questioned the veracity of some accusations hurled by another McCain advisor.

Maybe there’s something in the water at McCain Campaign Headquarters, but seriously—is attacking the media the best possible way to get your message to the independent voter? Not the base, but the undecided? The ones you need in order to win?

Granted, I can understand any antipathy the McCain camp might feel towards the NYT following that lamentable article on the Senator and lobbyist Vicki Iseman, but the items that provoked today’s blowup are, in fact, verifiable. It seems what made the McCain camp explode was the fact that they’ve been attacking Obama for the past week based on his camp’s associations between former Fannie and Freddie officials: from “Loan Titans Paid McCain Advisor Nearly $2 Million” by David D. Kirkpatrick and Charles Duhigg:

Senator John McCain’s campaign manager 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.

Mr. McCain, the Republican candidate for president, has recently begun campaigning as a critic of the two companies and the lobbying army that helped them evade greater regulation as they began buying riskier mortgages with implicit federal backing. He and his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, have donors and advisers who are tied to the companies.

But last week the McCain campaign stepped up a running battle of guilt by association when it began broadcasting commercials trying to link Mr. Obama directly to the government bailout of the mortgage giants this month by charging that he takes advice from Fannie Mae’s former chief executive, Franklin Raines, an assertion both Mr. Raines and the Obama campaign dispute.

Incensed by the advertisements, several current and former executives of the companies came forward to discuss the role that Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager and longtime adviser, played in helping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac beat back regulatory challenges when he served as president of their advocacy group, the Homeownership Alliance, formed in the summer of 2000. Some who came forward were Democrats, but Republicans, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed their descriptions.

So why did they hire Davis? He helped run McCain’s primary campaign in 2000; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were counting on Davis’s continued relationship with the Senator “and the possibility that Senator McCain was going to run for president again.”

To me, this seems slightly more egregious than "a couple of calls" between Franklin Raines and the Obama camp. Note that Raines denies ever advising the Obama campaign (see Factcheck).

Granted, Mr. Davis has left his lobbyist role behind, so at this point it shouldn’t matter. It’s a former job. What does matter is the fact that the McCain campaign, in its eagerness to back away from the Senator's history as a deregulator and to provide distance from his assertion that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong,” prefers to go on the attack and present itself as the victim of a biased media when the story about Mr. Davis's background could have been addressed in a rational manner (one that might appeal to voters).

One of Senator McCain’s top aids held a conference call today not to clarify the Times story, but to complain about the media coverage of the McCain campaign. According to the Washington Post,

In a conference call with reporters, chief strategist Steve Schmidt said: "Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization. This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate."

Unfortunately, during the conference call, Schmidt made numerous factual errors in listing Obama offenses. Politico’s Ben Smith participated in the conference call and then reported on Schmidt’s misstatements:

“Any time the Obama campaign is criticized at any level, the critics are immediately derided as liars,” Schmidt told reporters.

Well, no. Unless Schmidt is talking about when the McCain has been shown as lying or distorting facts about Obama’s record (just click on the FactCheck link to your left for examples). And Schmidt forgets that the media is just as likely to call the Obama camp out on its distortions of McCain’s record (cf. the Spanish language ads, Social Security claims). But complaining about “being derided as liars” doesn’t stop the McCain camp, no sir:

[Schmidt] went on to list a series of stories he thought reporters should be writing about Obama and Biden, in almost every instance he got the details wrong.

[. . . .]
“[Joe Biden’s] son is a lobbyist for the credit card and banking industry,” Schmidt said.

But Hunter Biden’s lobbying clients don’t include any banks or credit card companies. He did work, as a vice president and then as a consultant, for MBNA, a Delaware-based bank and credit card giant to which Biden had close ties. But he does not appear to have lobbied for the firm.

[. . . .]

"What we know for sure, and is beyond debate and argumentation is this: Senator Obama said that William Ayers is a guy that lives in his neighborhood. We know that that is a disingenuous and untruthful answer,” Schmidt said.

“Senator Obama began his political career in its early stages raising money at Ayers’ house,” he said.

Obama did hold a 1995 campaign event at Ayers’ house. It was not, however, a fundraiser, and Ayers did not contribute money to Obama’s first campaign, according to Illinois records.

Schmidt also complained of Obama backers’ attacks on McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

“As soon as Gov. Palin was nominated, one of … Obama’s chief campaign surrogates, [Florida Rep.] Robert Wexler, went out and accused her of being a Nazi sympathizer,” Schmidt said. “Where is the outrage to that aspersion on the part of some of the biggest newspapers in the country?”

But Wexler didn’t call Palin a Nazi sympathizer. He called former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan a Nazi sympathizer, and attacked Palin for allegedly having endorsed him.

Smith notes that Palin never endorsed Buchanan, despite the latter’s claims to the contrary.

In a move that certainly helps clear the McCain campaign from allegations that they’re over-fond of stretching the truth, it turns out that “McCain aides could not provide evidence to back up Schmidt’s assertions.” Smith continues:

One McCain aide, Michael Goldfarb, said Politico was “quibbling with ridiculously small details when the basic things are completely right.”

Another, Brian Rogers, responded more directly:

“You are in the tank,” he e-mailed.

Wow. Just wow. You lie, you get caught in a lie, and then you go after the messenger as if you’ve been unjustly targeted. What a novel way to sway your audience and convince them that your administration would approach issues with calm and reason. This seems pretty telling: rather than approach an issue with diplomacy, simply strike back. Don’t think about it, just act.

Update: Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports that Davis's company remained on the mortgage giants' payroll until last month:

neither the Times story—nor the McCain campaign—revealed that Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, based in Washington, D.C., continued to receive $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac until last month—long after the Homeownership Alliance had been terminated. The two sources, who requested anonymity discussing sensitive information, told NEWSWEEK that Davis himself approached Freddie Mac in 2006 and asked for a new consulting arrangement that would allow his firm to continue to be paid. The arrangement was approved by Hollis McLoughlin, Freddie Mac's senior vice president for external relations, because "he [Davis] was John McCain's campaign manager and it was felt you couldn't say no," said one of the sources. [McLoughlin did not return phone calls].

Apparently, all involved parties say that Mr. Davis's activities on behalf of Fannie and Freddie were "minimal," which prompts the question: why did his company remain on the lenders' payroll?

How Long Before It's True?

Boy, oh boy. Seriously, Senator McCain, I mean, seriously.

During his appearance on The View, John McCain claimed that, while Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin has not accepted state earmarks. This might have been a gaffe, and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt here, because the evidence is so clearly and obviously to the contrary of McCain’s assertions. Michael Dobbs’s Gact Checker at The Washington Post clarifies:

While it is true that she has sought fewer earmarks than her predecessor, Governor Frank Murkowski, Alaska still leads the nation in terms of per capita spending on earmarks, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

The WaPo FactChecker granted four Pinnochios on this attempt to "rewrite history."

Apparently, the McCain campaign has decided veracity is for the birds. Which, in a wildly awkward jump, brings us to those ads, “approved by” John McCain, that distort reality. Here’s John McCain’s explanation for them:

The defense from the candidate himself — heard only on “The View” because he hasn’t held a news conference in more than a month — is to essentially assert that he’s savaging Obama because the Illinois senator wouldn’t agree to the series of town hall meetings McCain proposed at the end of the Democratic primary season.

“If we had done what I asked Sen. Obama to do, because I’ve been in a lot of other campaigns where I have appeared with the opposition with the people and listened to their hopes and dreams and aspirations, I don't think you’d see the tenor of this campaign,” he said.

Huh? So if Obama had agreed to the town hall meetings, there would be no maliciousness? Hardly. Chances are that even with the Town Halls, the close nature of the race would have prompted the negative ads. Face it, the only goal here is to win, even, as Politico puts it, if it “soils his reputation”:

“We recognize it’s not going to be 2000 again,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, alluding to the media’s swooning coverage of McCain’s ill-fated crusade against then-Gov. George W. Bush and the GOP establishment. “But he lost then. We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.”

Rogers, who hung tough with McCain through the dark days of the primary and has lived through every high and low of this turbulent and unpredictable race, argues that they tried to run a high-ground campaign and sought to keep the candidate in front of the media in the fashion he enjoys. His point: No one paid any attention.

There you have it. The McCain campaign just doesn't care if they're caught out. What matters is being newsworthy. They've decided to be selective with John McCain's greatest strengths, his principles, for a "win at all costs" strategy, which is disheartening. Despite his critiques of other politicians who put personal ambition before honor and integrity, John McCain is risking his own—to win an election.

Sinclair Press Conference Updates

Update: Press conference concluded at 4:25 pm (EST). And you won't believe the results.


The Mitch and Nan Show has a reporter inside the NPC event. At this point, minutes into the presser, they state:

Our “exclusive” reporter is inside the press event, seated and ready.

We just received a text message. There are about 50 “people” in the event. He questions how many are actually reporters.

There are 6 TV “type” cameras there. None are representing major media outlets as far as he can tell.

We will NOT be receiving very many updates during the event as his job is to report, photograph and record.

We will let you know ANYTHING we receive as soon as we get it.

So, there you go folks. For updates (cause you know the MSM isn't covering this), head to Mitch and Nan's.

Update: Reverend Manning, of ATLAH Worldwide, is, allegedly, Sinclair's "special guest" at the NPC. He's been broadcasting from outside the event.

Sinclair, and His Criminal Past, Gets MSM Coverage

In advance of his National Press Club appearance later today, Larry Sinclair received a bit of his long-desired msm exposure. Unfortunately, for Sinclair, it isn't sympathetic.

In an article on today's Politico, Ben Smith airs Larry Sinclair's criminal history--one that includes fraud, theft, and disorderly conduct--and incarceration in three states. It seems that Mr. Sinclair was jailed as recently as mid-September, 2007.

I was struck by attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley's nonchalance in his response to a question Sinclair's outstanding warrant in Colorado; it's not really surprizing, as the Colorado warrant is not extraditable. However, as Smith writes, "Sinclair's notoriety, and his scheduled press conference, however, has drawn the interest of the Colorado authorities," as a result, the Colorado authorities says "[w]e've notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and they will investigate." This can't bode well for Sinclair, but this is what mainstream media attention brings.

Besides examining official records, it's clear that Smith also took a gander at Sinclair's blog, from which he cites some of Sinclair's more outlandish claims, explanations, and justifications. Smith appears unimpressed, noting that, "Sinclair has, [. . . ] addressed elements of his criminal past on his own blog and in court filings punctuated by unusual spellings and capitalizations." Being familiar with that blog, I wonder about Smith's impressions as he reviewed comments about "teabagging," the ghetto," "Planet of the Apes" (among numerous other monkey references), Obama selling "Kenyan fried chicken," "hilarious" YouTube videos about "watermelons," and hopes that someone puts "the [redacted] in a hole." These are among the less offensive comments left by Sinclair's regular supporters who are funding his journeys between Washington DC and Minnesota. Sinclair does moderate his blog, and he evidently finds such commentary appropriate. You might think that someone craving msm attention--someone who wants his story taken seriously--would be more circumspect in what he includes on his private blog (it's called "audience awareness"). It's highly possible that Sinclair's blog will do more to discredit him than anything else (well, excepting the criminal history).

By the way, Politico did not reveal Sinclair's allegations as they remain "unsubstantiated."

Now aren't all of you petition-signers pleased about Sinclair's appointment at the NPC? You should be.

Update: Fox News's Greta Van Susteran finally responds to numerous requests to cover the Sinclair story:

Many of you email me asking why I don’t interview Larry Sinclair….here is why (click on the link [to Ben Smith's Politico story])

click here…

I assume you now know why I have not interviewed him and no one has…his 27 year criminal record and all sorts of other matters mentioned in the above link tell you why..in short, no credibility.

I urge all of you to look to the issues…and not to the smears. While the internet is a great communication and educational tool, it is also viral when it comes to smearing people. There are good reasons to be skeptical of what politicians promise you.. challenge them about those promises…question their policies…but let’s skip unsubstantiated smears.

Although Sinclair will have the time, space, and publicity to air his claims, he will finally have to supply the proof he's not revealed since January--when he initially aired his story on YouTube.

By the way: The Mitch and Nan Show scooped Ben Smith on Sinclair's criminal past--his Colorado, Florida, and South Carolina problems--months ago.