In a September 22 New York Times article, reporters John Harwood and Michael Cooper suggested that only Democrats use the label “privatization” to refer to proposals like that supported by Sen. John McCain to “invest a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in stocks and bonds”; but many Republicans and conservatives -- including McCain himself -- have used the term “privatization” to describe such a plan for private Social Security accounts. Additionally, Harwood and Cooper reported that “Mr. McCain has made speeches and broadcast television commercials recently that highlight Mr. Obama's ties to former leaders of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae” without noting that, as the Times has reported, the Obama campaign has said that McCain is misrepresenting Obama's ties to former Fannie Mae chairman and CEO Franklin Raines. Nor did they note, as the Times also reported, that McCain's campaign manager received $2 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the head of the Homeownership Alliance, a Washington-based advocacy group whose founding members included Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Harwood and Cooper wrote that “Mr. McCain also stuck by his support for allowing workers to invest a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in stocks and bonds, an approach that Democrats call privatization.” But McCain himself used the label “privatization” while answering questions during a November 2004 reception in New Hampshire. He also expressed support for “private savings accounts,” including while speaking in favor of President Bush's Social Security plan. Additionally, Bush himself repeatedly referred to “private accounts” in a September 17, 2004, speech: “That's why I believe younger workers ought to be able to take some of their own money, set aside a personal savings account that will help Social Security fulfill its promise, a private account that they can call their own, a private account they can pass on to the next generation, and a private account that government can't take away.”

The Washington Post reported on January 23, 2005, that “Bush and his supporters have started using 'personal accounts' instead of 'private accounts' to refer to his plan to let younger workers invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds. Republican officials have begun calling journalists to complain about references to 'private accounts,' even though Bush called them that three times in a speech last fall.”

As Media Matters for America has noted, a memo to congressional Republicans from pollster Frank Luntz's research company stated that the two terms receive different reactions in polls:

And PLEASE, remember that you are NEVER talking about privatizing Social Security, nor are you advocating INDIVIDUAL accounts. You are talking about creating PERSONAL retirement accounts. So far, therethere [sic] has been generally strict message discipline here, but every now and then, I still catch members and staffers slip up. If you don't believe me, let the numbers convince you:

Personalizing Social Security has a 17% higher favorability rating than privatizing it. That is, 51% of Americans believe personalizing the program is a good idea, while only 34% believe privatizing is.

41% of Americans prefer a PERSONAL retirement account to an INDIVIDUAL retirement account.

If necessary, do what I do, and institute a strict policy among your staff that anytime someone uses either “privatize” or “individual” in the context of Social Security, they must pay you $50. It works.

Later in their September 22 article, Harwood and Cooper reported that “Mr. McCain has made speeches and broadcast television commercials recently that highlight Mr. Obama's ties to former leaders of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the mortgage giants at the center of the financial crisis,” without noting that on September 19, the Times reported that the Obama campaign has “vigorously denied a relationship between Mr. Obama and Raines”; Raines also denied a link, saying: “I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters.” The Times went on to report in the September 19 article that Obama spokesman Bill Burton “said that Mr. Raines and Mr. Obama met once on the campaign trail, sometime in 2007 or 2008, and had not talked since then.”

Additionally, Harwood and Cooper failed to note that several senior McCain campaign aides have served as lobbyists for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or both, including McCain campaign manager Rick Davis, who, according to a separate September 22 Times article, received nearly $2 million over the course of 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.”

From Harwood and Cooper's article:

But Mr. McCain said in an interview here with CNBC and The New York Times that he would press on with his plan to extend the Bush tax cuts and to cut others. Contrary to the warnings of fiscal analysts, he said he believed he could do so and balance the federal budget, which was falling deeper into deficit even before the financial crisis, by the end of his first term.

“I believe we can still balance the budget,” he said. “I think that it is restraint of spending, and I think it's growth of government and the economy, and the recovery of our economy. And anything you do that would take more money from the American people who are hurting more now, I think, would be a serious mistake.”

Mr. McCain also stuck by his support for allowing workers to invest a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in stocks and bonds, an approach that Democrats call privatization and that Mr. Obama has used to suggest Mr. McCain would subject retirees to excessive market risk.

[...]

Mr. McCain has made speeches and broadcast television commercials recently that highlight Mr. Obama's ties to former leaders of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the mortgage giants at the center of the financial crisis.

Mr. McCain has struck a notably populist tone in addressing the crisis, and in the interview, he set a specific limit on compensation for executives at firms that receive federal assistance. “But the major point,” he said, “is that no C.E.O. of any corporation or business that is bailed out by us, that is rescued by American tax dollars, should receive any more than the highest paid person in the federal government.”

Mr. Obama continued to assail the philosophy of excessive deregulation that he said was the root cause of the crisis and made clear that the aftermath should include a new regulatory approach.