McCain's Campaign Manager Played Key Role....

[FOTD]

Key role in causing the current economic crisis!


Sorry, Wingnuts: McCain's Campaign Manager Pushed For Boost In Minority Homeownership
"An emerging name on the right, one that's being championed by the likes of Neil Cavuto and others, is that the mortgage crisis happened not because of deregulation, but because brokers were pressured into making loans to "minorities and risky folks," as Cavuto tastefully put it.

But guess who actively sought to boost minority homeownership? John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/home_ownership_rick_davis_and.php

"Hmmm. Wingers agree McCain's campaign manager helped cause mortgage crisis?"

You'll still vote for McSame....won't you?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Key role in causing the current economic crisis!


Sorry, Wingnuts: McCain's Campaign Manager Pushed For Boost In Minority Homeownership
"An emerging name on the right, one that's being championed by the likes of Neil Cavuto and others, is that the mortgage crisis happened not because of deregulation, but because brokers were pressured into making loans to "minorities and risky folks," as Cavuto tastefully put it.

But guess who actively sought to boost minority homeownership? John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/home_ownership_rick_davis_and.php

"Hmmm. Wingers agree McCain's campaign manager helped cause mortgage crisis?"

You'll still vote for McSame....won't you?

So what, now you are against minorities owning homes?  Bigot.

Sure, let's come up with a safe scapegoat to revise history since Dems seem to have forgotten that Clinton and Cisneros were all about promoting minority ownership, regardless of the consequences.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Key role in causing the current economic crisis!


Sorry, Wingnuts: McCain's Campaign Manager Pushed For Boost In Minority Homeownership
"An emerging name on the right, one that's being championed by the likes of Neil Cavuto and others, is that the mortgage crisis happened not because of deregulation, but because brokers were pressured into making loans to "minorities and risky folks," as Cavuto tastefully put it.

But guess who actively sought to boost minority homeownership? John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/home_ownership_rick_davis_and.php

"Hmmm. Wingers agree McCain's campaign manager helped cause mortgage crisis?"

You'll still vote for McSame....won't you?

So what, now you are against minorities owning homes?  Bigot.

Sure, let's come up with a safe scapegoat to revise history since Dems seem to have forgotten that Clinton and Cisneros were all about promoting minority ownership, regardless of the consequences.

Just to keep you straight, you have the devil and Neal Cavuto confused.

Try Evelyn Wood....works better than being a wookie speed reader.

[FOTD]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/w24davis.html?_r=3&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1222225174-3BxnTQL1bx8sptdQvGC4yQ


Breaking...FBI investigating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac....
RIP RICK DAVIS

[FOTD]

Freddie Mac continued checks to McCain campaign chief's firm. Since 2006, the federally sponsored mortgage giant Freddie Mac has paid at least $345,000 to the lobbying and consulting firm of John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160561

CAMPAIGN 2008
Freddie's Friend
Freddie Mac continued checks to McCain campaign chief's firm.

By Michael Isikoff | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Sep 23, 2008

"When asked about his own campaign manager's associations with the mortgage giants, McCain, in an interview with CNBC on Sunday night, said that Davis "has had nothing to do" with the Homeownship Alliance since it disbanded and "I'll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it." (The Homeownership Alliance was set up and funded by both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to promote the goal of home ownership and counter efforts to impose tighter regulations on the two federally sponsored entities.) "

McLame!

[waterboy]

$30,000 a month just to be friends with the guy who runs McCain's campaign? That's some serious friendship. They noted they wanted to be able to have access to McCain should he become president. Yeah, that would have been helpful.

Geez, and McCain didn't know he was still on the pad?  

It makes me wonder if the big guys are rushing this 700 billion bail out because they want to beat the FBI's investigation leaks and make sure it all dies down before election week.

[FOTD]

SNAP!

[Conan71]

Doesn't seem to matter to NYT that Davis separated from his company in 2006 and recieves no compensation nor equity.  Why let a little thing like facts get in the way when a Presidency is at stake?


"A Partisan Paper of Record

Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with...Paul Begala.

Again, let us be clear: The New York Times -- in the absence of any supporting evidence -- has insinuated some kind of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and Rick Davis. But entirely missing from the story is any significant mention of Senator McCain's long advocacy for, and co-sponsorship of legislation to enact, stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- dating back to 2006. Please see the attached floor statement on this issue by Senator McCain from 2006.

To the central point our campaign has made in the last 48 hours: The New York Times has never published a single investigative piece, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, his consulting and lobbying clients, and Senator Obama. Likewise, the New York Times never published an investigative report, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and Senator Obama, who appointed Johnson head of his VP search committee, until the writing was on the wall and Johnson was under fire following reports from actual news organizations that he had received preferential loans from predatory mortgage lender Countrywide.

Therefore this "report" from the New York Times must be evaluated in the context of its intent and purpose. It is a partisan attack falsely labeled as objective news. And its most serious allegations are based entirely on the claims of anonymous sources, a familiar yet regretful tactic for the paper.

We all understand that partisan attacks are part of the political process in this country. The debate that stems from these grand and sometimes unruly conversations is what makes this country so exceptional. Indeed, our nation has a long and proud tradition of news organizations that are ideological and partisan in nature, the Huffington Post and the New York Times being two such publications. We celebrate their contribution to the political fabric of America. But while the Huffington Post is utterly transparent, the New York Times obscures its true intentions -- to undermine the candidacy of John McCain and boost the candidacy of Barack Obama -- under the cloak of objective journalism.

The New York Times is trying to fill an ideological niche. It is a business decision, and one made under economic duress, as the New York Times is a failing business. But the paper's reporting on Senator McCain, his campaign, and his staff should be clearly understood by the American people for what it is: a partisan assault aimed at promoting that paper's preferred candidate, Barack Obama."

http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=74063c9d-7cb5-47c9-acf6-53c0c2d88376

I don't guess it raises a red flag with either of you that Obama is the second-highest overall beneficiary of Freddie and Fannie contributions over the last 20 years, second only to Chris Dodd, even though Obama has only served on the national scene for not quite four years.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Doesn't seem to matter to NYT that Davis separated from his company in 2006 and recieves no compensation nor equity.  Why let a little thing like facts get in the way when a Presidency is at stake?


"A Partisan Paper of Record

Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with...Paul Begala.

Again, let us be clear: The New York Times -- in the absence of any supporting evidence -- has insinuated some kind of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and Rick Davis. But entirely missing from the story is any significant mention of Senator McCain's long advocacy for, and co-sponsorship of legislation to enact, stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- dating back to 2006. Please see the attached floor statement on this issue by Senator McCain from 2006.

To the central point our campaign has made in the last 48 hours: The New York Times has never published a single investigative piece, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, his consulting and lobbying clients, and Senator Obama. Likewise, the New York Times never published an investigative report, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and Senator Obama, who appointed Johnson head of his VP search committee, until the writing was on the wall and Johnson was under fire following reports from actual news organizations that he had received preferential loans from predatory mortgage lender Countrywide.

Therefore this "report" from the New York Times must be evaluated in the context of its intent and purpose. It is a partisan attack falsely labeled as objective news. And its most serious allegations are based entirely on the claims of anonymous sources, a familiar yet regretful tactic for the paper.

We all understand that partisan attacks are part of the political process in this country. The debate that stems from these grand and sometimes unruly conversations is what makes this country so exceptional. Indeed, our nation has a long and proud tradition of news organizations that are ideological and partisan in nature, the Huffington Post and the New York Times being two such publications. We celebrate their contribution to the political fabric of America. But while the Huffington Post is utterly transparent, the New York Times obscures its true intentions -- to undermine the candidacy of John McCain and boost the candidacy of Barack Obama -- under the cloak of objective journalism.

The New York Times is trying to fill an ideological niche. It is a business decision, and one made under economic duress, as the New York Times is a failing business. But the paper's reporting on Senator McCain, his campaign, and his staff should be clearly understood by the American people for what it is: a partisan assault aimed at promoting that paper's preferred candidate, Barack Obama."

http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=74063c9d-7cb5-47c9-acf6-53c0c2d88376

And because the McCain camp puts out a presser on their website we should take it as truth?

I think I'll wait until the story is vetted a little better.  As long as it's not McCain doing the vetting.  We all know what a wonderful job of that he does.

[}:)]

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Doesn't seem to matter to NYT that Davis separated from his company in 2006 and recieves no compensation nor equity.  Why let a little thing like facts get in the way when a Presidency is at stake?

Yes he did. Yes he does..... Don't go defending the indefensible.

[Hoss]

Wow, is the McCain campaign going to blast Newsweek also?  They're saying the same thing.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160561

[swake]

Freddie Mac also paid Davis's consulting and lobbying firm Davis Manafort a consulting fee of $15,000 a month starting in 2005--before Davis took a leave of absence to work on the McCain campaign--and ending only last month, when the U.S. government acquired the firm. (The New York Times has also posted a story on the payments.) Davis is still a partner and equity-holder in Davis Manafort, so he continues to benefit from its income.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/24/on-davis-s-ties-to-freddie-mac-mccain-gets-boomeranged.aspx

[Conan71]

Davis is complying with the letter of the law.  Not any different than an elected official putting investments into blind trusts or resigning from a company they own stock in while they serve in public office.

It's a stretch to sully the McCain campaign further.

McCain has not cosorted with two former CEO's of Fannie Mae who advocated book-cooking to increase their personal fortunes.  One served as VP vetter for Obama the other was identified as consulting with Obama on housing policy by WaPo, who is now running a front saying Raines never consulted with Obama.  Which is it?

FWIW, Obama's running mate, whom Johnson helped pick, has been sympathetic to the causes of large lenders and against the best interests of taxpayers on lending issues.