McCain campaign hired "Jew-counter" Fred Malek - will Politico cite "McCain's Jewish problem"?
On April 3, Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) 2008 presidential campaign announced that it had hired former Nixon staffer Fred Malek as its national finance co-chairman. However, as David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, noted in an April 3 entry on his Capital Games weblog, the McCain campaign's press release "left out an interesting piece of Malek's history: when he counted Jews for President Richard Nixon." As Corn reported, Nixon suspected that a "cabal" of Jews at the Bureau of Labor Statistics was skewing economic figures to make the administration look bad and assigned Malek to report back on how many Jews were employed at BLS. When former President George H.W. Bush hired Malek as a top official at the Republican National Committee (RNC) in 1988, revelations in the press regarding Malek's work for Nixon reportedly led him to resign. McCain's hiring of Malek would seem to warrant the same disclosures from the media, but so far, only one news outlet other than The Nation has reported it.
Moreover, as Media Matters for America senior fellow Eric Boehlert documented, Politico senior writer Ben Smith "lean[ed] on lots of innuendo" in a March 13 weblog post in order to report that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has a "Jewish Problem," but failed to provide evidence substantiating that claim. Now that McCain has hired Malek, who allegedly aided President Nixon's attempts to expose the so-called "Jewish cabal" in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, will the Politico investigate "McCain's Jewish Problem"?
Thus far, The Politico has yet to even note the addition of Malek to the McCain campaign: Chief political correspondent Mike Allen's April 4 article on McCain's "Retool[ed] Money Team" made no mention of Malek, and Malek has not been mentioned on Smith's blog, nor on the blog of Politico senior political writer Jonathan Martin, who purports to focus on the Republican 2008 presidential candidates.
Aside from The Nation, the only other media outlet to note Malek's hiring was the April 3 edition of the National Journal's The Hotline, which reported simply that "businessman Fred Malek will also support McCain and serve as a nat'l finance co-chair." Corn's blog entry was also excerpted in an April 3 entry to TPM Café's Election Central weblog.
According to Corn's blog entry, titled "John McCain and the Jew-Counter":
Two years ago -- when Malek was leading an investment group seeking to buy the new Washington Nationals baseball team, my friend Tim Noah at Slate reviewed Malek's dark past. Here's what he wrote:
It's one of the more gothic stories about Nixon related in Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's The Final Days. As they tell it, late in 1971 -- the same year, coincidentally, that the Washington Senators moved to Texas and changed their name to the Rangers -- Nixon summoned the White House personnel chief, Fred Malek, to his office to discuss a "Jewish cabal" in the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The "cabal," Nixon said, was tilting economic figures to make his Administration look bad. How many Jews were there in the bureau? he wanted to know. Malek reported back on the number, and told the President that the bureau's methods of weighing statistics were normal procedure that had been in use for years.
In 1988, when George Bush pere installed Malek as deputy chairman for the Republican National Committee, Woodward dusted off his notes and, with the Washington Post's Walter Pincus, further revealed that two months after Malek filed a memo on the matter -- he'd counted 13 Jews, though his methodology was shaky--a couple of them were demoted. (Malek denied any role and said Nixon's notions of a "Jewish cabal" were "ridiculous" and "nonsense.") The 1988 story raised a predictable ruckus, and Malek beat a hasty retreat from the RNC.
Corn also noted: "As a Nixon aide, he [Malek] set up a project that sought to influence government decisions to assist Nixon's 1972 reelection campaign. In 2006, Washington Post columnist Colbert King described this program as 'a scheme designed, organized and implemented ... to politicize the federal government in support of Nixon's reelection.' "
As Media Matters documented, the media have largely ignored the controversial backgrounds of several McCain campaign staffers, such as campaign manager Terry Nelson, who approved an attack ad against former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) that was criticized as racist, and was implicated in the criminal investigation into former Rep. Tom DeLay's (R-TX) alleged illegal laundering of campaign contributions. The media have also largely ignored the controversy surrounding blogger and political consultant Patrick Hynes, who was hired by the McCain campaign in May 2006. Hynes subsequently posted several blog entries touting McCain as a candidate and bashing McCain's rivals without disclosing his relationship to the campaign. Similarly, the media have turned a blind eye to accusations surrounding Jill Hazelbaker, McCain's New Hampshire communications director. While serving as communications director for New Jersey state Sen. Thomas Kean Jr.'s (R) failed 2006 U.S. Senate campaign, Hazelbaker allegedly posed as a Democrat in order to anonymously attack Kean's opponent, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), on liberal blogs.















C'mon, MMFA, get over it!
Anti-semitism issues are sooo 20th century.
And conservatism is so-o-o-o-o-o-o-o 12 Century.
:-)
So it's okay for the Republicans to have "Jew counters," but Edwards can't have people critical of Catholicism?? I'm not sure what universe that makes sense in... unless we're talking about The Bizarro World, of course.
Well, I don't think either candidate should have either. Although I do believe the media spent much more time on Edwards' issue than McCain's.
So when will McCain hire Mel Gibson to make Passion of the Maverick?
Actually, McCain explained the expenses for the "Jew Counter" as the installation of a deli sandwich preparation surface.
Nothing to see here, move along.
So when will McCain hire Mel Gibson to make Passion of the Maverick?
Wookie, now that was funny!
With McCain it's been one blunder or misstep after the other. This guy stands zero chance of getting to the Oval Office. Thank God...
Johnnie it's time to retire.
I agree Jeter, but I'm starting to think American's like voting for the dumb guy. It makes us feel superior and every nitwit will believe that he could grow up to be president some day.
Hey, if GW could get there, and Johnboy has a shot, why not me.
I might have to go get that pesky GED though.
As long as you're not a white Christian male, King.
This discrimination goes back even further than Glenn Beck knows.Oh, when will the Christian Heterosexual Anglo Male Person (C.H.A.M.P.) get a break?
I wonder if this site is visited by professional bloggers hired by the candidates, such as Patrick Hynes referenced in this item. My guess is yeah, as some here seem too good to be casually doing it.
I've always felt that there are hired guns for the Repubs here to throw rhetoric bombs and high five each other when they get the desired outrage. Once one of their dumb opposing postulations are shot down, they rarely come back for more.
I think McCain is rapidly becoming irrelevant.
Just like Rush Limbaugh.....
If ever there were a more blatant attempt at character assassination with unproven assertions. I haven't seen it.
MMFA should be ashamed. They've reached a new low.
I am alittle disturbed also at this thread. McCain is not an anti-Semite . I remember Jesse Jacksons "h*mie town" comment and I never felt he was an anti -semite. However McCain is toast and not because of this but because of his stance on this stupid war.
I don't think the issue is McCain (or the "character assassination" of him as noted above), its that again the media will not report about Repub skeletons as readily as they salivate about Dem or progressive miscues. It is about the anti-semitism of Dick Nixon and one of his aides who went along with it, but now is scott-free to join another Repub campaign because he knows how to scout for bucks.
The media spent a lot of time discussing Edwards' bloggers saying things about Catholocism and Christianity. It doesn't mean that John Edwards'is anti-Christian. Why won't the MSM report about this?
The facts about this so-called "Jew counter" were proven years ago. The only thing that's unproven is the intellectual capacity of those who support the GOP.
It seems to me your liberal bias is getting in the way of your critical thinking skills. To compare this guy with the bloggers is really stretching your credibility.
1. I may be wrong, but it looks to me like this "jew counter" claim was never substantiated. Plus it was denied by Malek.
2. Even if he did, MMFA reports that he showed his disdain toward Nixon.
3. This allegedly happened 35 years ago.
4. The Edwards bloggers expressed actual prejudice toward Catholics and vulgarity in the very recent past. (You may think differently, but read their posts first.)
To think there is an equivilency shows some on the left apparently think that it is okay to engage in character assassination to anyone on the right over unproven accusations 35 years ago just because obviously extremely biggoted lefties have been exposed for their religious hatred.
Another example in my book of liberal logic.
And your conservative bias blinds you to anything wrong with anyone to the right of center.
Why not list this if the right is going to go after the women on Edwards campaign who criticized Catholics?
I'm glad I'm not the only one who picked up on the irony of this.
It's becoming more and more obvious that in the world of Conservative Christian Republicans (CCRs), Christians in general and Catholics in particular can never be attacked. Jews and Muslims, OTOH, appear to be fair game....
WZ
Besides making no sense, that sure sounds like a biggoted statement to me.
My only hope is that you obviously did not read what those bloggers wrote.
It makes perfect sense. Conservatives criticized Edwards for having people on his payroll who criticized Catholics, yet McCain seems to get a free ride having an apparent anti-Semite on his.
AA did you read what the bloggers wrote? Or did you just read what Donahue said about them?
Because really a lot of what she wrote about was not attacking Catholics in general. She was attacking the policies of the church itself.
I have heard many Catholics, both in the media/my friends/etc who regularly attack the church and the pope for doctrine created centuries ago. Are they anti-Catholic? No. They still believe in the mass, saints, etc, etc.
I think a lot of what confuses people is the language regarding bigotry. If some one is critical of something and has proof of the incident to back it up, that is not bigoted speech. Intent does play a factor. If the blogger had attacked the Catholic Church itself and just said "all Catholics are inferior and should not be allowed civil rights", that is bigoted speech.
THANK YOU for countering blather with cold, hard facts.
:-)