Wash. Post did not mention that McCain campaign's list of "[o]bjective observers" who criticized NY Times story included McCain's own attorney
In a February 23 article, The Washington Post quoted a fundraising letter from Sen. John McCain's campaign asserting that "[o]bjective observers are viewing" a February 21 New York Times article about McCain's relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist "as a sleazy smear attack from a liberal newspaper against the conservative Republican frontrunner." The Post did not note, however, that one of the "[o]bjective observers" quoted in the email was none other than Robert Bennett -- an attorney hired by McCain specifically to deal with issues related to the Times' reporting.
In addition to Bennett, two of the three other "[o]bjective observers" listed by McCain campaign manager Rick Davis in the letter were conservative Fox News host Sean Hannity and former Republican Congressman and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough (FL).
From Davis' February 21 letter:
John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has led the charge to limit the money and influence of the special interests in politics and stomp out corruption. His life and his record prove just how preposterous the smear by the New York Times really is.
Objective observers are viewing this article exactly as they should - as a sleazy smear attack from a liberal newspaper against the conservative Republican frontrunner. Sean Hannity said, after reading the article three times, "It was so full of innuendo and so lacking of fact, and so involved in smear, I came to the conclusion that the goal here was to bring up a 20-year-old scandal." Washington attorney Bob Bennett, who was the Democrat counsel during the Keating investigation, said, "This is a real hit job." Joe Scarborough called the allegations "outrageous." Even pundit Alan Colmes -- not known for his conservative leanings -- concludes "this is a non-story."
From the February 23 Washington Post article:
Both McCain's campaign and the RNC sent e-mails Thursday seeking to capitalize on conservative distaste for the Times and the media in general.
"We will not allow their scurrilous attack against a great American hero to stand," proclaimed the message sent by campaign manager Rick Davis. "Objective observers are viewing this article exactly as they should -- as a sleazy smear attack from a liberal newspaper against the conservative Republican front-runner."
Fundraising experts said yesterday that the outpouring is understandable. "Outrage opens the pocketbooks," said Philip A. Musser, a GOP strategist with national finance experience. Musser said conventional wisdom once held that bad news on the trail would dry up the flow of money to a candidate. But this year, the opposite has been true. One of Sen. Barack Obama's best fundraising efforts came the day after he lost in New Hampshire. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had her best stretch of fundraising after announcing that her campaign was in financial trouble.
What That McCain Article Didn’t Say
Obama needs to keep clear of this kind of gutter politics. And yes, I'm going to say it one more time. Will the MMFA please stop trying to help Obama the way it did for Hillary?
I am the only one honest enough to have stated clearly that Hillary was not a good candidate. Many of you apologists for HRC were critical of me - but I told the truth.
And now I'm going to tell the truth again - this kind of sleazy politics will hurt Obama the same way that Hillary's paid liars and apologists at MMFA hurt her campaign. You guys at MMFA make the left look weak and stupid.
Again, the only way that MMFA can help is to STOP "helping" by focusing on
bogus sleazy attacks on McCain. This kind of smear campaign can only HELP
John McCain.
It has not been shown to be "true" either.
And let's try to be honest - Hillary's problems were not due to some remarks made by Chris Matthews or MSNBC. The problem WAS Hillary. She was a lousy candidate, period. The media did not make that up - it was simply the truth.
This is the fact that MMFA simply does not have the guts to admit.
Another deflection troll. How quaint.
Agreed...
"If no one seems to understand
Start your own revolution and cut out the middleman"
Thank you so much, notanotherconservative2254, for all that you do.
Most people as brilliant, helpful and honest as you are would not take the time to share their gifts with the less capable.Some would be hindered by a sense of modesty from dealing out that sort of "straight talk", having the courage to tell everybody else that they're liars and you're the lone voice of truth.
On behalf of MMFA, I'd like to say thanks for the helpful advice on how to run their site. I hope they appreciate it.
Again, thank you.
Its smooth, I'd go for satire shetland.
I could give a flying Fred about his love life. The lobbyist influence is what I'd like to hear more about. The outrage about the article somehow evades this issue.
How refreshing, a con who's both honest and willing to tell us how honest he is.
You're humility knows no bounds.
I was in awe, as well. I think that sort of absolute honesty comes only from complete isolation from any feedback from humans regarding how delusional and pompous one is.
I'm chalking it up to booze, or assisted living.
JUST ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE:
Your "TRUTH" is NOT a "truth".
You say, "I am the only one honest enough to have stated clearly that Hillary was not a good candidate."
RESPONSE: So ridiculous on so many levels.
First, whether Hillary is a "good candidate" is a matter of OPINION, not "honesty".
Second, YOU are not the "only one" to indicate Hillary a bad candidate: The Rightwing, the Republicans, and the MEDIA have for YEARS pontificated how bad a candidate Hillary is, how "high her negatives are", etc. YOU, the "only one"? LOL. You're JUST ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE.
Third, the Democratic contest this year is between two VERY GOOD candidates. That one will eventually prevail does not mean the other was a "bad" candidate. Hillary and Obama are BOTH very GOOD candidates, and BOTH have garnered tremendously more votes of the American People in the primaries than ANY of the Republicans, including McCain. By your "logic", if Hillary is a "bad" candidate, then McCain is HORRIBLE (actually, you may have something there ...)
Fourth, you often assert that you're being "HONEST". If you were honest, you would admit that you are a "concern troll" who seeks to tear down Democratic candidates from the false standpoint of "being a Democrat yourself". You are NOT. You are a rightwing tool.
Fifth, your entire basis of complaint here is your FALSE assertion that MMFA is promoting one candidate, then another. You either ignorantly or by being purposefully obtuse misunderstand the mission of MMFA. MMFA exposes the MISINFORMATION of the right (YOUR people), and you don't like it. Sorry.
Your "advice" always comes from the standpoint of what "WE DEMOCRATS" should do for "OUR OWN GOOD". Balderdash. You come here as a sheep wearing a wolf's pelt, and try to convince us to change our path, to change our ways, or else DOOM awaits us. Nobody's buying, Mr. Concern Troll.
A wise man once said, "When he tells you how HONEST he is, count the silver."
"And now I'm going to tell the truth again - this kind of sleazy politics will hurt Obama the same way that Hillary's paid liars and apologists at MMFA hurt her campaign."
So you are assuming that Obama has something to do with this? How much of a stretch is that?
The story itself was not false in any way. The story rightly stated that McCain sent letters on behalf of a prominent lobbyist. The story also stated, as speculation, that two ex-campaign staff for McCain in 2000 had worries about how close said lobbyist was to McCain.
I'll admit, the article was poorly written. It opened those questions without closing them. It's sloppy ethics, but that's what our entire media has become. I mean, just look at cable news.
In the eyes of Republicans, Sean Hannity is an objective observer. Anyone still holding on to illusions that John McCain is a normal human being and not a part of the bizarro world, alternate reliity realm of the Republican Party should give it up.
Yea, the New York Times article has envigorated Republicans against a traditional liberal boogy-man. However, IMO the story is far from over. What the Times has done is provided a start for others willing to investigate further. McCain's base, such as it is, may soldify but I think in the long run the revelations of McCain's cozy realtions with lobbyists will hurt him with moderates and independents.
Even if it's something weak like Bennett asking what's the difference whether McCain met with Bud Paxson or not after McCain erroneously said he didn't.
If you pay someone enough they'll try to get the pubic to believe meeting with someone is the same as not meeting with them.
That's not an objective observer, that's an advocate.
How ironic:
The NYT suddenly becomes a champion of investigative journalism. Why just a few short days ago it was a scurrilous rag parroting right wing talking points!
The NYT has zero credibility. McCain handled the report pretty adroitly by just dismissing it as a lie. Given the Times' reputation, that is a pretty believable position. Who expects them to write the truth?
Uhh, which part of the Times article was a lie?(Irony101)
THE PART THAT RUSH LIMBAUGH TOLD HIM WAS A LIE YOU STOOPID QUESTION-ASKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND I'M USING ALL CAPS SO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT I'M SERIOUS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!