Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Schmidt Hammers the New York Times


AP Photo.

UPDATE, 4:45 pm: New York Times editor Bill Keller gave the following statement to Politico's Michael Calderone on the allegations made by McCain operations manager Steve Schmidt today.

"The New York Times is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively. It's our job to ask hard questions, fact-check their statements and their advertising, examine their programs, positions, biographies and advisors. Candidates and their campaign operatives are not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny, but it's what our readers expect and deserve."

UPDATE, 3:10 pm: The Obama campaign is pushing back against the idea that the media coverage of the race has been slanted in his direction. A memo sent to reporters moments ago by campaign spokesman Bill Burton argues that the New York Times has written 40 stories investigating Obama's background and association while not penning a single story on "the last major financial regulatory crisis, resulting in a huge bailout, and which John McCain was centrally involved in with his political godfather Charles Keating." OUCH.

And, still no response from the Times just yet.

ORIGINAL POST
Steve Schmidt, the day-to-day operational manager of John McCain's presidential campaign, blasted the New York Times for alleged "advocacy" on behalf of Barack Obama's campaign in a conference call today.

"This is an organization that is completely, totally 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate," Schmidt said. "It is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside it's journalistic integrity to advocate for the defeat of John McCain."

Schmidt made his comments in response to a question from CNN's Dana Bash to McCain campaign manager Rick Davis regarding a story in the New York Times today that detailed Davis' profits for his advocacy work for a group set up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Davis, answering first, explained that he had never lobbied for the group, adding: "I was the public face of an organization that promoted homeownership for a number of years."

Schmidt, as is his reputation, then dropped his rhetorical bomb on the New York Times. The call was ostensibly organized to discuss the new ad out of the McCain campaign that attacks Obama as creation of Chicago machine politics.

(We'll have a response -- if any -- from the New York Times as soon as one comes in.)

The McCain campaign's relationship with the New York Times has been, how do we say it, testy, for quite some time. That relationship (or lack thereof) is generally traced to the months long battle between the paper and the campaign over the publishing of a story regarding McCain's relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman.

Attacking the New York Times -- and the media generally -- is a smart strategic move when it comes to uniting the Republican base behind McCain. While that base has never felt warmly toward McCain, they feel even less warmly toward the media in general, and the New York Times in particular. It's the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" argument and it has worked extremely well for the McCain campaign to date.

Does criticizing how the media is covering the campaign have any impact on making up the minds of those crucial independent and undecided voters who will make the difference in the fall? Probably not, as people tend not to follow so-called "process" stories very closely.

But, Schmidt's tirade against the media may have a different goal. Working the referees is a common tactic in presidential campaigns and Schmidt's remarks seem to be as much about laying a layer of guilt on the media for what he believes is an unfair approach to the coverage of the two candidates to date.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 22, 2008; 12:03 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fix Cam Week in Preview: The Fix Presidential Picks (Updated)
Next: The Debate Over the Debate

Comments

NY Times in the Tank for Obama
One thing you got to appreciate about the New York Times is its consistency in lying about Republicans so why should anyone be surprised the Times is “in the tank for Obama” now?

As an indication of how long the New York Times has hated Republicans, in January 1909 they detested Theodore Roosevelt so badly that in order to undermine his Panama Canal efforts they dutifully declared in a page 1 above the fold story that he had “had mismanaged it so badly that the Canal had to be begun anew in Nicaragua.” Not only did they never print a correction but in August 1914 when the Canal was finally opened, the New York Times announced what is even today one of the greatest engineering feats of all times … on page 14. Up until then they left their readers believing the Canal had been moved to Nicaragua! If you think I’m kidding, check out the history.

When McCain senior campaign advisor Steve Schmidt pointed out that “Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization… it is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be.” The Times executive editor Bill Keller responded “The New York Times is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively.” He failed to mention “aggressively” only applied to Republicans.

On CBS News last Thursday during an interview with Katie Couric, Senator Biden said "Part of what being a leader does is to instill confidence is to demonstrate what he or she knows what they are talking about and to communicating to people ... this is how we can fix this," Biden said. "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'look, here's what happened.'"

Two problems with Biden’s history, the market crashed in 1929 and Roosevelt wasn’t president until 20 April 1933 and Television hadn’t been invented yet…. Other than that Biden got it right. But then again, the NY Times never bothered to report this as how out of touch Biden is with reality….. but then again, he’s not a Republican… so much for “aggressive” reporting.

Like I said, you gotta appreciate consistency…. anyone for a trip through the Nicaragua Canal?

Posted by: A-COL | September 25, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

I AM NOT A CROOK!

Posted by: RICHARD NIXON (R) | September 23, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Funny article today on the Wall Street Journal about the Washington Post's hypocritical (pro-Obama) coverage of campaign ads. Specifically, recent Post's attack on McCain ad about Francis Raines (Fannie Mae CEO) relationship with Obama. (One in an apparently endless string of Post's biased "fact checking" of campaign ads).

The Washington Post Paradox
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122193386006060171.html

A recurring theme in the old "Star Trek" series was the machine run amok. An intelligent computer, entrusted with some important task, would conclude that human beings were imperfect because they do not always act logically. Because humans are imperfect, the computer would reason, they must be destroyed. (This seems like a bit of a leap, but maybe it made sense in the '60s.)

Invariably, Captain Kirk and the other protagonists would save mankind by using illogic to fight the computer. They would feed the computer some paradox or logically incoherent statement, such as "Everything I say is a lie," which would overload the computer's logic circuits and destroy it.

Last week John McCain's campaign put out an ad criticizing Barack Obama for his ties to Franklin Raines, former CEO of Fannie Mae. The ad said that Obama relies on Raines "for 'advice on mortgage and housing policy.' " The Washington Post claims that the McCain ad is "a stretch":

So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post business reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

So the Washington Post is saying you can't believe McCain's ad because it is based on reporting in . . . the Washington Post. The Washington Post is not a reliable source of information, according to the Washington Post.

But if the Washington Post is not a reliable source of information, how can we believe the Washington Post when it says it's not a reliable source of information? But if we don't believe the Washington Post when it says it's not a reliable source of information, then we must believe the Washington Post is a reliable source of information, in which case how can we believe the Washington Post is not a reliable source of information. But if . . .

You get the picture. Clearly this is part of a sinister plot by the Obama-coddling mainstream media to induce madness in all Americans who have the capacity for logical thought, rendering them unable to vote and ensuring the election is decided by Obama backers who act totally on emotion.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 23, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

This is a great way for the McCain campaign to divert attention away from the latest financial crises, which is directly related to their candidate’s previous deregulatory stances.

Posted by: Dave | September 23, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

"The New York Times is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively. It's our job to ask hard questions, fact-check their statements and their advertising, examine their programs, positions, biographies and advisors. Candidates and their campaign operatives are not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny, but it's what our readers expect and deserve."

Only they don't use the same scrutiny as with Obama that they put on McCain. And the content of the stories themselves is twisted and lying.

Example: not one piece covered how the "computer cluelessness" ad at the NY Times was in fact false in its claims (that McCain couldn't send email and doesn't use computers) OR in its implications (McCain isn't a keen computer because is out of touch with technology when in fact his hands are crippled from torture so he has a problem, long documented in the press, of having difficulty keyboarding).

NOT ONE piece in the NY Times covered that info. There was some lame "fact check" article that made reference to the fact that McCain does email and doesn't use computers as much as some people, but that article also used some corollary explanation to explain how the ad wasn't really off base (which was false).

So one brief, fleeting article on the "computer cluelessness" ad, which was so heinous that even Obama's VP denounced it, which didn't really find anything wrong with it. Versus the reams of coverage on McCain ads that are for the most part true, but that the NY Times called "false", applying a standard of truthiness that amounted to "an finding that a McCain ad is false will stand if any interpretation that it might be false can be construed from any implication one might draw from it." There are too many of these false "fact findings" on McCain ads to bother to list them.

This is from the same paper that wrote multiple editorials about Clinton's 3 a.m. ad against Obama, which couldn't be construed as even stating facts, since it just proposed a question about comfort with candidates' experience levels. How many editorials and articles did the NY Times write denouncing Clinton's 3 a.m. ad? Unbelievable.

The media is not even bothering to hide its hypocrisy anymore.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 23, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Just looked at some of the comments on this site. Anyone else find it strange that an "Anonymous" blogger is demanding that "Obama staffers" identify themselves?

Posted by: Brooklyn Democrat | September 23, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

It backfired. Politico called them on the lies and distortions they made during the conference call to discuss the Times coverage.

The Palin/McCain campaign gives every appearance of being run by drunken frat boys and school yard bullies. Yuk.

Posted by: Brooklyn Democrat | September 23, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Steve Schmidtz is a bumbbling idoit. The Mcshame camp and his supporters should stop whinning.They don't realize that the american people refuses to fall for the same old Carl Rove tactics. We will not be frighten anymore, and we refused to be saddled with the like of John Mcshame. The man has been given a pass because he was a prisoner of war. John Mcsame is pathetic, he is a liar, he knows nothing , he is dishonest, and he has lost his dignity and credibility with the voters.

Posted by: tygirl | September 23, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The NY Times stories cited by Bill Keller have often been of the 'finding himself' variety indistinguishable from outright puff pieces.

There is a problem for New York, Chicago, DC journalists which the feeding frenzy over Palin exposes . . . they discount the routine dysfunction of public services, or corruption, or one-party politics of their own urban home precincts in advance. Old news, you see. It's like journalists in the Old South, who went along with the mores and manners of their homeland. Roger Simon has a joke on his page about being buried in Chicago so that he can continue to, in so many words, vote after he's dead. Urban corruption is a given in Chicago. So small-time stuff like 'Troopergate' becomes a big national story because it's Alaska, while the far more serious and troubling role played by the Democratic Party in the sometimes vicious outcomes of civic culture in troubled urban areas is, as I say, discounted. Call it the urban provincialism of the chattering classes.

McCain's latest ads tie Obama suggest a road map from Chicago's Democratic machine to Chicago's terrible schools and stagnant economy - an angle too sensitive for Chicago journalists, who must stay on the good side of their sources in city politics, to investigate. So the urban news organizations miss the big story - the rejection of five consecutive northern Democrats over the past 40 years, in no small measure because they appear to be the representatives of stagnant states, and how that might be a deciding factor in rejecting a sixth. They can't exactly knock the fundamental political culture of the cities in which they have chosen to live and work. So they give the issue of urban political outcomes on a national stage a pass.

Posted by: Mark Richard | September 23, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Folks the country is going hell in a handbaskedt and you're worrying about what the NY Times says. If you don't like it fine, don't buy it and vote whatever you want (which you will anyway.) The country is again in financial meltdown (under the Republicans watch --again)and this is no joke. The Republicans want all the money in the world to bail themselves out of the mess of their making, and you formerly known as middle class have to come to the rescue. Where the hell are they getting this money? $700 billion? Bush and Paulson don't have a clue as to what's happening and neither does anyone else. It is truly the blind leading the blind and everyone trying to sound like they know what's going on and what to do to end it. Yeah right -- give me $700 billion and I can figure it out too. We need to vote for the person who can give us some hope that we can get out of the mess. Frankly those of you who voted Republican helped cause this mess so stay home. You had your turn and you blew it. You blew it for your parents (retiree) and your children, so stay home and don't blow it for your grandchildren and great grandchildren (if we even exist by then). Now we all have to pay. With the pressures on the president McCain will be dead within 3 yrs and we could be stuck with unqualified and panic Palin who will turn to the folks who got us into this mess in the first place and then what? Haven't heard from Sen Gramm nor other free market folks. Think they've gone into hiding? Wonder if Sen Gramm thinks Americans are just whiner now?

Posted by: DebV | September 23, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

How the NYT should have responded to the McCain campaign?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HabIoeqzL40

Posted by: Elitist | September 23, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

There are far more articles about McCain-Palin than Obama-Biden. Problem is many of the articles about McCain-Palin are negative.

However, the negative articles about McCain-Palin are of there own creation: Palin repeatedly lied about stopping the bridge to no where--despite every national news outlet confirming her initial support of the bridge and her speaking out against it only after Congress killed its funding ; Palin, her aides, and husband announced their intention to ignore subpoenas to appear before the committee investigating Troopergate--an act of outright impunity--after Palin initially said she would cooperate; McCain-Palin announcement that she would visit nine international diplomats in 30 hours--drawing national attention to her lack of foreign policy experience; Palin’s non-stop insistence she will end earmarks, all the while seeking $197 million in earmarks for Alaska--even building the road to no where with $24 million in earmarks; Palin repeatedly stating she will be an advocate for special needs children, all the while cutting funding for Alaska's Special Olympics...and the list goes on and on.

As for McCain, his hour by hour flip-flops on the state of the economy this past week made many question his soundness of judgment; McCain's 26 years of staunch deregulation ideology replaced in 26 hours by a staunch regulation ideology; McCain's wild knee-jerk calls for the firing SEC Chairman Cox and the creation of a socialist-style government trust to administer corporate America; McCain's campaign ads so riddled with lies, the mass media could not simply ignore them; McCain's incoherent interview with a Spanish reporter in which McCain seemed to confuse Spain with Latin America; and the list goes on and on.

If McCain-Palin want good press, they might try behaving in a manner consistent with intelligent, rational, leadership.

Posted by: socalgal59 | September 23, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

McCain economic adviser Carly Fiorina bluntly stated that neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin were capable of running a major corporation (she said the same of Barack Obama and Joseph Biden). A top campaign adviser said Fiorina will be punished for her candid opinions:

“Carly will now disappear,” this source said. “Senator McCain was furious.” Asked to define “disappear,” this source said, adding that she would be off TV for a while – but remain at the Republican National Committee and keep her role as head of the party’s joint fundraising committee with the McCain campaign.

Fiorina was booked for several TV interviews over the next few days, including one on CNN. Those interviews have been canceled.

Posted by: AlexP1 | September 23, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

.

Voted One Of This Year's Best Political Blogs For the Election Of 2008

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

BOOKMARK IT NOW !!!!

.


.


Voted One Of This Year's Best Political Blogs For the Election Of 2008

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

BOOKMARK IT NOW !!!!


.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Biden was the one that said "Obama would be a President in training"

Hillary said he could not answer the phone at 3AM and make executive decisions.

There is a reason they said this! because they believe it is true!!!

Posted by: maryt | September 23, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Bob Campbell, was this a freudian slip when you wrote:

"BTW - McCain was a con-sponsor."

Posted by: FLWindgoddess | September 22, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

We all know the media is leftist. Just like its owners.
Gerneral Electric is a communist corportation it owns NBC.
Walt Disney another hotbed of liberalism owns ABC.
Viacom chairman sumner redstome (another pinko) owns CBS.
Of course Time Warner is a Bleeding Heart organization. It owns CNN NEWS.

The truth is all these networks,like FOX, are conservative right wing media, answering to the corporate bottom line in true capitalist fashion.

Don't knock the New York Times.
In this country you never value what you have until it's gone.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Folks the country is going hell in a handbaskedt and you're worrying about what the NY Times says. If you don't like it fine, don't buy it and vote whatever you want (which you will anyway.) The country is again in financial meltdown (under the Republicans watch --again)and this is no joke. The Republicans want all the money in the world to bail themselves out of the mess of their making, and you formerly known as middle class have to come to the rescue. Where the hell are they getting this money? $700 billion? Bush and Paulson don't have a clue as to what's happening and neither does anyone else. It is truly the blind leading the blind and everyone trying to sound like they know what's going on and what to do to end it. Yeah right -- give me $700 billion and I can figure it out too. We need to vote for the person who can give us some hope that we can get out of the mess. Frankly those of you who voted Republican helped cause this mess so stay home. You had your turn and you blew it. You blew it for your parents (retiree) and your children, so stay home and don't blow it for your grandchildren and great grandchildren (if we even exist by then). Now we all have to pay. With the pressures on the president McCain will be dead within 3 yrs and we could be stuck with unqualified and panic Palin who will turn to the folks who got us into this mess in the first place and then what? Haven't heard from Sen Gramm nor other free market folks. Think they've gone into hiding? Wonder if Sen Gramm thinks Americans are just whiner now?

Posted by: DebV | September 22, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

I believe that the terms liberal and conservative are overuesed and should be retired. No one person fits neatly into the classification either way.

Instead of being a sign of honest political idealogical differences, they have become rhetorical daggers that offend neither side one iota. Republicans get a sickened cheap thrill by saying "you liberals" and democrats get the equally repulsive jolly by screaming "the repubs". While neither side see the term describing them as being offensive. In fact they "embrace" it.

We have alot on the line this election, and I, for one, will not be making my decision based on what any of American's "Post's" or "Times" report.

I have my leanings, primarily because of McCains offensive gender panderous selection of Sarah Palin as his VP running mate. The entire integrity of the Executive Office of the President is on the line because he was willing to selfishly stoop to the lowest level to try and woo' unsuspecting female voters. His selection is an affront to the intelligence of American women.

I came across an article suggesting the VP's husband would be the "First DUDE". America is involved in 2 wars, our economy is closer to failing than most realize, and our education system in the United States is failing. This is no time for such silly postulating.

It is not the time to elect a "feel good" slapstick, banjo playing, yodeling yahoo, because, well, I cannot think of ANY reason to elect such a person.

Nonetheless, John McCain is at the top of the republican ticket and it is his politics that, to date, I find the least beneficial to the majority of Americans. My family to be certain. I am not in the top 10% of wage earners in the country so his tax plan will certainly not provide any relief to me.

I believe in equal pay for equal work for women. All the women of my family are working class, and I feel they deserve a fair opportunity to make what their male counterparts make in the workplace. That is called justice and equality. John McCain is against this, he says this would be too expensive.

McCain/Palin are against abortion under ANY circumstances; to include incest and rape or to save the mothers life. They believe that a life is a life and that it should be considered homicide if a raped mother chooses to terminate the pregnacy. Whose family values are those?

Yet, they support the death penalty, as if life, for their political purposes, ends at birth.

I cannot claim either party because both have equal share of extremes that don't resonate well with me.

I am not the "loyalist" type. I am of the "realist" type. I am analytical to a fault. McCain has abandoned his centrist appeal with his selection of Palin and adaptation of extreme evangelical right ideals and policies.

For me, the debates, if ran appropriately will decide the day. That would be the PRESIDENTIAL debates.

Posted by: NovemberHoldout | September 22, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

You don't know much do you Anonymous Screamer?

The answer is both: I and my words a joke.

I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

Posted by: John McCain | September 22, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

McCain courted Jerry Falwell when Falwell was still around. Look into Liberty University if you want a taste of racism, please. McCain visited and gave a speech at the campus.

You saw how much bad blood Wright had towards his so called favorite son. He completely betrayed Obama, so I think this issue has been completely used and abused and is finished. You Repubs have no leg to stand on here, if you want to talk about churches filled with hate, there are so many instances of it documented along the modern history of every white dominated denomination. Look at Pat Robertson for starters, Jerry Falwell, John Hagee.

It is laughable that those that preach hate think they have a leg to stand on here. Please go read the bible for yourself and find out what Jesus really preached (it was love).

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Oh Anon...do you write comedy on the side? I don't know which is the bigger joke, your words or you.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Me tired of anonymous screamer, are we still paying that guy? What? He's a volunteer?

Who let that prick on my staff! What? He works for Obama? What are you talking about ... oh, Obama is trying to show America the class of people who are voting for me.
That's pretty slick, and all I got is bashing the media?

See if you can buy some his advisors.

Posted by: John McCain | September 22, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama

You have unleashed your horrible obnoxious toxic staff bloggers on Sarah Palin


- sent out a pack of wolves, I mean lawyers which are worse, to Alaska to dig up dirt on her

- the real problem is that you resent WHITE WOMEN - it is a problem with your mother, right - you hate your grandmother, that "typical white woman" who is concerned about getting mugged so she keeps an eye on people who look like you.........


Obama grow up

Obama grow up

America is sick of your attacks


America is sick of your wall street friends


America is sick of your lies


America is sick of David Axelrod's deceptions and distractions

America is bored with you -

Obama you are yesterday's flavor


America is going with Sarah Palin....


.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

It seems like it ... I mean is it just me? Doesn't it seem like being born *after* the Jim Crow era is at least a tiny bit better than being born during the Jim Crow era?

Anonymous Screamer, do you long for Jim Crow, or is it that you have a thing for black children?

Me Like kiddie porn. I'm John McCain and I approve this message ... who keeps writing this crap in my speeches!

Posted by: eth | September 22, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

"But your hostility is deeper - it is rooted in your feelings toward your mother and her decisions to bring a black baby into this world and make you live in the aftermath of the Jim Crow era."

Oh looky! Sigmund Fraud dropped in.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Boy you can tell it's over for the RNC when the best stooge they can find is the Anonymous Screamer. It appears all the literate stooges have abandoned ship.

Still, you sort of have to admire his work ethic. He's going to earn every penny, he's not going to give up just because people are making fun of him.

Then again, maybe he's too stupid to realize it? What fun is that?

Posted by: the end | September 22, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

McCain=More Failed Bush Policy
$2.4 TRILLION WAR

America's sworn enemy is in Afghanistan/Pakistan and not Iraq... Why didn't someone give Bush a map and point out Iraq is NOT Afghanistan?

Number of Iraqi's who flew planes on 9/11 - 0
Number of Iranian's who flew planes on 9/11 - 0
Number of Saudi's who flew planes on 9/11 - 15

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" = GOP COWBOY POLICY

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

WASHINGTON: A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

AND MCNUTJOB SAYS BOMB IRAN???
THIS GUY SHOULD BE IN BELLVIEW PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Posted by: kkrimmer | September 22, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

"REZKO AYERS REV. WRIGHT CHRIS MATTHEWS KEITH OLBERMAN MSNBC THE NEW YORK TIMES WALL STREET BROKERS ANGRY LIBERS IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT FOR THIS COUNTRY ?????"

Anything beats George Bush and his doppelganger. And what's with all the caps? So much anger and whining. What has happened to the Republican party?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama's hostility toward WHITE WOMEN is rooted in his own feelings toward his white mother and white grandmother - who were 'typical white people' to Obama - Obama resented the idea that his mother went with a black man instead of a white man, resulting in Obama ----- clearly Obama is angry about that decision -


well

Obama do not take out your hostility against WHITE WOMEN on Sarah Palin - we understand she represents everything you resent about America - a successful woman who has conservative values and a wonderful career.

But your hostility is deeper - it is rooted in your feelings toward your mother and her decisions to bring a black baby into this world and make you live in the aftermath of the Jim Crow era.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Me bend over and drop pants.

Hey! Who put that in my speech?

Posted by: John McCain | September 22, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

hang tough ny times and be the media for honest insight ... remember the 1st ammendment rights ... if it weren't for the "media" we all might as well live in Russia and believe the BS coming from Rep's. There are a bunch of old saying for the Reps right now:
1) if you can't take the heat, get 'outta the kitchen,
2) Turn about is fair play;
3) If you at first don't succeed, try and try again
4) Life is like a box of chocolates ...

Reps, you screwed the pooch royally and most everyone has hung up on your weak BS. Like you have run out of minutes ... it isn't a dialogue anymore. We hung up long ago, your believability is ZERO.

Posted by: vs | September 22, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Guess what Anonymous screamer, I'm not an Obama supporter and I hate McCain too. I won't be voting for either of these jerks.

You really lack imagination you know that? You're a good McCain lacky, good boy, good boy!
now bend over and drop your pants.

Posted by: aaas | September 22, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

"Why won't the Obama staff bloggers identify themeselves on this forum???"

Geez...talk about delusional. Too difficult to believe that there really are so many Obama supporters? Well guess what? There are!!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

SOMEONE please tell David Axelrod that we understand that everytime he is guilty of something he attempts to blame the other candidate for that fault - the politics of distraction.


Let us focus on David Axelrod.


David Axelrod is the biggest liar in politics right now - let's hear his next story about Rev. Wright's RACIST CHURCH WHICH OBAMA GAVE $20,000.00 TO ONE YEAR.


IF A WHITE CANDIDATE GAVE $20,000.00 TO A CHURCH WHICH WAS RACIST AGAINST BLACKS WHAT WOULD THE NEW YORK TIMES SAY ???


CHRIS ARE YOU A SERIOUS JOURNALIST???

REZKO AYERS REV. WRIGHT CHRIS MATTHEWS KEITH OLBERMAN MSNBC THE NEW YORK TIMES WALL STREET BROKERS ANGRY LIBERS IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT FOR THIS COUNTRY ?????


.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Me fix economy. Me like anonymous bloggers who yell all time too. Me speek your langage.

Me John Mc ... ahem, I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

Posted by: John McCain | September 22, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

OK Let's get this straight - David Axelrod's new idea is to run a national Presidential campaign by telling the media that the other candidate is a liar - and this is David Axelrod we are talking about.

IF A LIAR TELLS A LIE - WHAT IS THE TRUTH???

DAVID AXELROD TELLS YOU THE OTHER GUY IS LYING TO DISTRACT YOU FROM HIS OWN LIES. WAKE UP. DAVID AXELROD IS THE LIAR.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Me fix economy.

I'm John McCain and I app .... will somebody get me a new diaper already!

Posted by: John McCain | September 22, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Me fix enocomy ... ecnmomy ... economy.

I'm John McCain and I ... what was I talking about?

Posted by: John McCain | September 22, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Why won't the Obama staff bloggers identify themeselves on this forum???

That is the first set of lies - the Obama is pretending to be regular people

You are the staff bloggers - be honest - you are lying about who you are - that is why your credibility is a disaster

PAID FOR BY CITIZENS TO STOP THE OBAMA STAFF BLOGGERS FROM LYING ABOUT WHO THEY ARE - AND ALL OF AMERICA HAS APPROVED THIS MESSAGE

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

McCain campaign lies....while whining about being called liars


"Sen. John McCain’s top campaign aides convened a conference call today to complain of being called "liars." They pressed the media to scrutinize specific elements of Sen. Barack Obama’s record."

"But the call was so rife with simple, often inexplicable misstatements of fact that it may have had the opposite effect: to deepen the perception, dangerous to McCain, that he and his aides have little regard for factual accuracy."

"The errors in McCain strategist Steve Schmidt’s charges against Obama and Sen. Joe Biden were particularly notable because they seemed unnecessary. Schmidt repeatedly gilded the lily: He exaggerated the Biden family's already problematic ties to the credit card industry; Obama’s embarrassing relationship with a 1960s radical; and an Obama supporter’s over-the-top attack on Sarah Palin when — in each case — the truth would have been damaging enough."

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


But as he 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."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13747.html


Read the piece for the details, but when the Politico's Ben Smith asked the McCain campaign for evidence for their assertions, this is the response he got:


Asked about the series of errors, McCain aides could not provide evidence to back up Schmidt’s assertions.


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


Here's the mavericky "straight-talk" from McCain Rovebot campaign flunkie, Steve Schmidt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HabIoeqzL40
.

Posted by: McCain = Bush's third term | September 22, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

I find it unfathomable that Republicans don't want straight answers from their candidates and talking heads. To complain when a reporter puts a candidate or talking head's words to the litmus test goes against the best interests of all citizens in the U.S. Personally I'd like to see both parties rigorously challenged when they say something contrary or disingenuous.

Posted by: James | September 22, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Me fix economy.

I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

Posted by: wrong | September 22, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Did I mention that Bill Keller and the New York Times stole Senator McCain's strawberries? It's true. Click, click, click, click.

Posted by: Steve Schmidt | September 22, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

I've heard Steve Schmidt speak about the news media, and throughout his presentation, I kept having the feeling that he was using some sort of nuanced phraseology that told his sympaticos that while he was saying New York news media he really meant New York Jewish news media. I thought I was just being nuts, but then two people afterwords offered the same evaluation unprompted. There is at least a lot of hate implied in this anti-intellectual, anti-news media rhetoric that feels very historical in its ancestry.

Posted by: jake | September 22, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

That's a good question, why do republicans hate America? Even Bin Laden couldn't do this much damage to us, and he sure hates America.

The only reasonable way to see what the republicans have done is to see it as a way of acting on their hatred of America.

Posted by: felix | September 22, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

They should just refuse to talk with anyone except for Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. That would show those media liberals! Hey, it is their strategy for Palin - they thought Charlie Gibson was okay, but it turns out he's a no good, in the tank liberal, too.

If the media keeps acting like this it will be no barbeques and no more donuts, with or without sprinkles, for that pack of jackals...

Posted by: Chuck | September 22, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous coward, wall street is largely populated by republicans.

Guess what you putz - I don't like the democrats either, but at least they think their way into the hole they always end up in - you republican idiots just bend over and spread your cheeks.

Why do republicans hate America?

Posted by: garflaw | September 22, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

GARFLAW

Take your New York Times and your wall street thieves and leave the country YOU ARE UNAMERICAN.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Hey 37th&OStreet .. Jayson Blair was fired when his falsehoods were unearthed. On the other hand the editorialists at the WSJ do worse than Blair every single day, and they still have jobs. You care to think about that some more?

Posted by: Chris Fox | September 22, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, CNBC, Saturday Night Live giving Al Franken a spot, The New York Times, Angry, Liberals, Wall Street Meltdown BE SERIOUS CHRIS THE LIBERAL IN NEW YORK HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING - THE THING IS THEY ARE NOT - THEY THINK THEY CAN BRAINWASH AMERICA.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

McCain and his stooges would say this whether it was true or not.

They need all the straw men they can get. They need you the voter to think that they are against your enemies, and if you don't think you have enough enemies here are some more we're against.

The shallowness of the republican message is exceeded only by that of the people who believe it.

Posted by: garflaw | September 22, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

The angry liberals in New York are pushing hard for Obama - their problem right now is that Wall Street is destroying their credibility completely


The New York Times newsroom has been a complete disaster for at least 20 years now.


Do I have to mention Jason Blair? So many qualified white males (who were actually liberals too) were passed over to give Jason Blair plum assignments and promotions - well the rest is history.


The liberals in New York have nothing but shame and are completely full of it.

The liberals in New York are the cause of the Wall Street meltdown - their greed and excess - also arrogance - have resulted in threatening the jobs of millions of Americans. Liberals. Angry.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | September 22, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

when you can't state a positive for your campaign and candidate you drop back to option B1: go negative against the opposition whether it is truthful or not; and when that isn't going so well, you go go option B2: assault "the media" in hopes they will lay off you and/or be intimidated so as to lean your direction.

Looks like the McCain campaign has decided its man (and woman) can't win the race on their merits so it is going to be a long 43 days of watching McCain ads strain credulity and Mr. Schmidt whining.

Posted by: robert bell | September 22, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Poor Steve, someone give the guy a hanky.

Posted by: Chris Fox | September 22, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

" ... Schmidt's remarks seem to be as much about laying a layer of guilt on the media for what he believes is an unfair approach to the coverage of the two candidates to date."

What makes you think people like Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Rove have the equipment with which to "believe" anything? The tantrum is pure calculation, the result of bottomless cynicism and the total lack of scruples of any kind. Of course Mr. Schmidt knows full well the Times is as fair and balanced as they come.

Posted by: R M Gopal | September 22, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

I really never thought I would see it in this lifetime, but Steve Schmidt might just give Karl Rove a good run for the money.

Posted by: Lying 4A Living | September 22, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

DISTRACT AND ATTACK!!!

"I'm John McSame and I approve this message."

Posted by: Get OFF of MY Lawn!!!! | September 22, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

The McCain campaign's behavior reflects that of the candidate himself: irrational and angry outbursts, detachment from reality. As Frank Rich explained in his NY Times column yesterday: "[the campaign's] game plan is to envelop the entire presidential race in a thick fog of truthiness...McCain, Sarah Palin and their surrogates keep repeating the same lies over and over not just to smear their opponents and not just to mask their own record. Their larger aim is to construct a bogus alternative reality so relentless it can overwhelm any haphazard journalistic stabs at puncturing it."

Posted by: harlemboy | September 22, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Outrage is Steve Schmidt's primary campaign strategy, used whenever (and far too frequently in my view) the McCain folks want to draw the media's attention away from the actual news of the day. And when outrage is directed at the media, it has the added potential of creating intimidation, i.e. getting the media to back-off. I am increasingly disappointed with each and every reporter, both print and broadcast, who give any of this outrage nonsense the slightest bit of attention. And to top it off, the Washington Post has actually posted this nonsense twice - articles by Kurtz and Cilizza. Congratulations folks! You've no doubt made Steve Schmidt's day.

Posted by: rahrahrah | September 22, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

If the story is false why doesn't McCain refute it? I see a lot of stuff about how bad the NYT is. Is the story false and if it is gives us the facts. It's very easy to do if the truth is on your side.

Posted by: DavidD | September 22, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

...and others are canceling our subscriptions to the NYT and Post because of their disgraceful bias towards Obama..

And when did you come to realize this? Today? Hmmmm. I am curious!

Posted by: Steely Dan | September 22, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

think rupert murdoch

cares about anything...

except leveraging the propaganda...


for his bully boys?


did you know the CIA interfered with Australian politics


isn't that _illegal_

think they're interfering in AMERICAN politics???

as a poster here, I can say unequivically...


yah budday,


and they're not serving the people...


they're serving KING GEORGE, on your dime....

Posted by: do you | September 22, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

is a won ton wrapper


with a mouth.


he couldn't stand up to a real man...

I know.

wanna dance schmidt? I will put my boot so far up your wazzoo


when I wiggle my toes your lips will move.


come on shunt. let's do it.


.

Posted by: schmidt | September 22, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

The NYTimes is in trouble. They're hemorrhaging money. Their idea is, if the Democrats are running things, that Frank, Dodd, Obama, Schumer and the rest of the Fannie Mae crowd will make an offer for the NYTimes (with government funds). They're probably right. The Fannie Mae crowd has skated so far. You can bet the NYTimes won't make a peep about them.

Posted by: ThisIsReality | September 22, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

am pretty sure that


the REPULSIVE SCUMs

put about 18 PerCENT of the votes into O ba ba mans

ballot box,

to get rid of Hillary. and the Corporatocracy runs the media....

Mc Cain was treated like he wasn't a liar on "60 Minutes," while O ba ba man faced tougher questions....

Mc Cain's interviewer treated him like the senile grand pa he is.....very tender and loving, not making him look like the reptile he is....

whacha gonna do?


nuke 'em.

Posted by: I | September 22, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

No living politician has ever gotten as fawning press as McCain.

Posted by: aleks | September 22, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Several comments below note the "experience" McCain had as a member of the Keating Five. He has every right now to blast the NYT, when it was the NYT who stated, in that case: "The senators' initial defense of their actions rested on Keating being one of their constituents; McCain said, "I have done this kind of thing many, many times," and said the Lincoln case was like "helping the little lady who didn't get her Social Security." [Berke, Richard L. (1989-11-05). "Helping Constituents or Themselves?", The New York Times.]

We need to stop all of this mudslinging and be grateful that men like John McCain helped little old ladies get their Social Security. Come November, it will be time for John McCain to get what is coming to him.

Posted by: Lest We Forget | September 22, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

What a perfect photo! A disciple of Karl Rove running the show for a cardboard frontman.

Posted by: FlownOver | September 22, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

is a won ton wrapper

with a mouth.

he couldn't stand up to a real man...


I know.


wanna dance schmidt? I will put my boot so far up your wazzoo

when I wiggle my toes your lips will move.

come on shunt. let's do it.

.

Posted by: schmidt | September 22, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

McCain is George W. Bush...


down to the pouty "lips" and all.....


looka here:


STEERING the McCain Campaign, a LOT of Old BUSH HANDSs

By Anne E. Kornblut and Juliet Eilperin

Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 22, 2008; Page A04

When Gov. Sarah Palin flew home to Alaska for the first time since being named the Republican vice presidential nominee, she brought along at least half a dozen new advisers to conduct briefings, stage-manage her first television interview and help her prepare for a critical debate next month.

This Story
Steering the McCain Campaign, a Lot of Old Bush Hands

Seems Like Old Times

And virtually every member of the team shared a common credential:

years of service to President BUSH.

From Mark Wallace, a Bush appointee to the United Nations, to Tucker Eskew, who ran strategic communications for the Bush White House, to Greg Jenkins, who served as the deputy assistant to Bush in his first term and was executive director of the 2004 inauguration, Palin was surrounded on the trip home by operatives deeply rooted in the Bush administration.

The clutch of Bush veterans helping to coach Palin reflects a larger reality about Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign: Far from being a group of outsiders to the Republican Party power structure, it is now run largely by skilled operatives who learned their crafts in successive Bush campaigns and various jobs across the Bush government over the past eight years.


The team has been assembled and led by Steve Schmidt, a sharp-witted, low-key strategist who has emerged as the campaign's day-to-day operations chief after the ouster of a group of sometimes undisciplined McCain loyalists. Schmidt's operation is tightly run and hard-nosed -- made up of policy advisers, communications experts, advance people and lower-level aides, many of them old friends who have worked together for the last eight years, and whose presence lends a familiar vibe to the Palin operation.

Republicans have been heartened by the effectiveness of the new McCain organization, which has helped put McCain back in serious contention for the White House, causing restlessness among Democrats who believed the race was Sen. Barack Obama's to lose. Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman, expressed pride at what her former colleagues have been able to accomplish.

"We had a great team -- they're the best in the business, and I'm sure the campaign feels fortunate to have them," Perino said.

Yet others, including some sympathetic Republicans, have begun to quietly question whether McCain and Palin are well served by strategists so firmly anchored in the Bush establishment when the candidates are presenting themselves as a "team of mavericks" and agents of change. One Republican with long-standing ties to the Bush administration described the situation as a paradox in which Palin is especially vulnerable.

"If the McCain campaign is trying to prop up Palin as its change agent, and its inoculation against the 'third Bush term' rap, then why on earth is she surrounded by a cast of Bush advisers?" said the Republican loyalist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Since she's been selected, every single one of the senior aides that she's brought on board had prominent roles in Bush's White House or on his campaigns, or both."

While Schmidt has imposed a degree of discipline on the campaign that did not exist during McCain's dark hours in the primary season -- and Palin seems to have taken to that structure -- other strategists with reputations for independent thinking who once surrounded McCain have been sidelined. John Weaver, who used to serve as McCain's top political adviser, is among them. He said McCain's reliance on Bush vets is logical.

"If you're going to fill a campaign out with experienced people, the last two general elections were won by someone named Bush," Weaver said. "Where else would they have come from?"

The ranks of the McCain-Palin team are now full of those veterans. Nicolle Wallace, Mark Wallace's wife, was communications director at the White House and is now offering senior-level communications expertise to both McCain and Palin (and joined Palin on her Alaska trip). Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who served as chief economist for Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, is now McCain's domestic policy adviser (and accompanied Palin to Alaska as well). Bush confidant Mark McKinnon stopped formally advising McCain once Obama became the Democratic nominee -- but he, too, is continuing to advise the group and crafted Cindy McCain's convention speech. A former Bush speechwriter, Matthew Scully, wrote Palin's convention speech.

___________________________________________


it goes on for another page, the Post put it out on SUNDAY at 11:00 PM


you may have missed it....


here's the link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092101608.html

email it to O ba ba man, it'll sink


John Mc CAin or mcbush as he actually exists.


.thanks for burying the story Washington Post.


you've got SOME NADS, no actually you're displaying your regular form...no nads


I have nads, you have nothing.


.

Posted by: John | September 22, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

MEDIA BASH BARACK (NOT A TYPO)

Study Finds Obama Faring Worse On TV News Than McCain

Barack Obama is getting more negative coverage than John McCain on TV network evening news shows, reversing Obama’s lead in good press during the primaries, according to a new study by Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study also finds that a majority of both candidates’ coverage is unfavorable for the first time this year. According to CMPA President Dr. S. Robert Lichter, “Obama replaced McCain as the media’s favorite candidate after New Hampshire. But now the networks are voting no on both candidates.”

These results are from the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) 2008 Election News Watch Project. They are based on a scientific content analysis of 249 election news stories (7 hours 38 minutes of airtime) that aired on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and Fox Special Report (first half hour) from June 8, 2008 to July 21, 2008. Previously we analyzed 2144 stories (43 hrs 30 min airtime) during the primary campaign from December 16, 2007 through June 7, 2008. We report on all on-air evaluations of the candidates by sources and reporters, after excluding comments by the campaigns about each other.

MAJOR FINDINGS:

Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive). That’s worse than John McCain’s coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period.

This is a major turnaround since McCain and Obama emerged as front-runners in the early primaries. From the New Hampshire primary on January 8 until Hillary Clinton dropped out on June 7, Obama’s coverage was 62% positive (v. 38% negative) on the broadcast networks; by contrast, McCain’s coverage during this period was only 34% positive (v. 66% negative).

Obama ran even farther behind McCain on Fox News Channel’s Special Report with 79% negative comments (v. 21% positive), compared to 61% negative comments (v. 39% positive) for McCain since June 8. During the primaries Obama had a slight lead in good press on Fox, with 52% favorable comments (v. 48 % unfavorable), compared to 48% favorable (v. 52% unfavorable) for McCain.

Obama’s bad press has come at a time when he was much more visible than McCain. Since June 8, he has been the subject of 120 stories on the three network evening news shows, 50% more than John McCain’s 80 stories.

Examples of Obama’s evaluations:

Positive: “Obama came to Baghdad and he brought his star power with him…..hundreds of U.S. troops and State Department personnel mobbed Obama at the embassy here.” –Terry Moran, ABC

Negative: “You raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying, even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, ‘why’?” – Katie Couric, CBS

Negative: “Far more Americans say John McCain would be a good commander in chief than Obama” – Jake Tapper, ABC

Posted by: STILTON | September 22, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

HA HA HA HA HA!

Old Mc Goo hates it when the facts get out! Grrr, I'll attack the New York Times, 'cause I go nothin' else to do! Grrr!

Poor Mc Goo, you've got seven top campaing spots run by lobbyists, and many more on your staff.

Sooooo, where can I get me one of them jobs that pays $1 Million a year to do "nothing."

Because, you know, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae just gave him that cash because he's such a nice guy, LOL!

Posted by: LH | September 22, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Deport_the_libs writes: wow. sweet Sarah draws 70,000 in Florida
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/696050.html

hey libby, it's gonne be a 3peat

2000.2004,2008

If you're going to get your facts wrong, you might want to actually read the story for which you provide the link. Looks like McCain's camp has been exaggerating again.

Here is what your story said:
A fire rescue official estimated the crowd at 25,000 to 30,000, while the Republican Party of Florida pegged the audience at twice that size.

Maybe that's how we got into this financial mess...Republicans can't count.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

I think "patriotgames" made many good points, but I'm willing to give you, Brando, the benefit of the doubt and hear the reason why you disagree with the other points. This is a sincere request. How we became such a verbally abusive and slanderous political entity that would rather yell talking points at one another than discuss issues is an interesting subject.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

McSame Advisors Paid $2,000,000 by Freddie and Fannie Mae for Lobbying for

LOOOSE Regulation

Better Blame the Media

DipStick/LipStick CARL ROVE 08

Posted by: why was the TIMES IN THE TANK ON WAR? | September 22, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

"patriotgames" (below) made one good point (I don't agree with almost everything else):

Newt and Co. started the bitterness that we have seen for the last 20 years. Both sides have disgraced themselves enough since then by practicing "hatchet politics." Newt was drunk with power of a Republican President and Congress.... and then he blew all of his credibility by not monitoring the ethics of his own party (including himself). Let's keep the Executive and the Legislative separated by ideology (Vote McCain). (Constructive) tension makes for better policy than another Newt-like power trip....

Posted by: brando76 | September 22, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

"The NYT is totally out of touch. It's so in love with Obama that nothing gets in the way of the good things they say about him. There is going to be a backlash against this kind of journalism. The Washington Post is just a little right of the NYT ; I and others are canceling our subscriptions to the NYT and Post because of their disgraceful bias towards Obama."

Posted by: direse

Lol...Lockstep,lockstep,lockstep....

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

patriotgames

In an August 23 article on Sen. Barack Obama's selection of Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) as his vice-presidential running mate, the Los Angeles Times reported that "when he ran for president in 1988, Biden was accused of plagiarism when he did not credit Neil Kinnock, then leader of the British Labor Party, for much of his stump speech." Similarly, in an August 23 article, The New York Times reported that Biden "was forced to quit the 1988 presidential race in the face of accusations that he had plagiarized part of a speech from Neil Kinnock," and in an August 23 article, the Associated Press reported that Biden's 1988 run for president "ended badly" after he "was caught lifting lines from a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/joe_bidens_plagiarism_problem.html

Bidens kids...right Obama, lobbyist are bad ?

son and a brother of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) are accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner and an investor of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal that went sour, court records show.

The Democratic vice presidential candidate's son Hunter, 38, and brother James, 59, assert instead that their former partner defrauded them by misrepresenting his experience in the hedge fund industry and recommending that they hire a lawyer with felony convictions.

The legal actions have been playing out in New York State Supreme Court since 2007, and they focus on Hunter and James Biden's involvement in Paradigm Companies LLC, a hedge fund group. Hunter Biden, a Washington lobbyist, briefly served as president of the firm.

A lawsuit filed by their former partner Anthony Lotito Jr. asserts in court papers that the deal was crafted to get Hunter Biden out of lobbying because his father was concerned about the impact it would have on his bid for the White House. Biden was running for the Democratic nomination at the time the suit was filed.


so let's talk about 'judgment' libs. He threw Hillary over the cliff for this guy ?


let's see how long the dems and libs keep telling us how honest mr obama is as this gets ready to launch

http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/why_obama_is_mum.htm

what lifted Obama from obscurity to national prominence in such a short time you may wonder ?

why not ask Percy Sutton, the most powerful civil right activist in New York

We know enough about Obama’s Columbia grades to know how far they fall below the Harvard norm, likely even below the affirmative action-adjusted black norm at Harvard.

As far back as 1988, however, Obama had serious pull. He would need it. As previously reported, Khalid al-Mansour, principal adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, lobbied friends like Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton to intervene at Harvard on Obama’s behalf.

An orthodox Muslim, al-Mansour has not met the crackpot anti-Semitic theory he could not embrace. As for bin Talal, in October 2001, New York mayor Rudy Giuliani sent his $10 million relief check back un-cashed after the Saudi


billionaire blamed 9/11 on America.

Posted by: laughing at the dems | September 22, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Thank God the McSame People Have Found Cause of All Our Problems -

THE New York Times

DipStick/LipStick 08

they promise to rid the Nation of Evil Papers.

Posted by: dick cheney is a liar and corrupt | September 22, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

NYT is in the tank. They are so in the tank they've swayed people in McCain's direction (i.e. the underdog effect).

Posted by: carol | September 22, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

I guess we should add Republican bashing of the New York times to the politicial cliche's of apple pie and motherhood. Maybe use that as a standard to differentiate elections.

' ... in oh eight Steve Schmidt is widely regarded as having started the 'Times bashing far too late. It wasn't until the middle of September before he accused the 'Times of favoritism. Karl Rove, on the other hand, started 'Times bashing much sooner. So here in 2012 - what do you think about the GOP starting their attacking the New York Times during the primary. I'll start with you Chris.'

Posted by: NoOneImportant | September 22, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

"I and others are canceling our subscriptions to the NYT and Post because of their disgraceful bias towards Obama."

Dear Mr. Hannity:

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

Sincerely,
WaPo Readers

Posted by: Tim B, Dallas, TX | September 22, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"I and others are canceling our subscriptions to the NYT and Post because of their disgraceful bias towards Obama."

Dear Mr. Hannity:

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

Sincerely,
WaPo Readers

Posted by: Tim B, Dallas, TX | September 22, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

The NYT is totally out of touch. It's so in love with Obama that nothing gets in the way of the good things they say about him. There is going to be a backlash against this kind of journalism. The Washington Post is just a little right of the NYT ; I and others are canceling our subscriptions to the NYT and Post because of their disgraceful bias towards Obama.

Posted by: direse | September 22, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Voting schedules are determined by states; Feds and campaigns have nothing to do with them. For years now, states have tried to come up with ways to enable more voters to vote, this is good.

If everyone waited until the same Tuesday in November to vote; lines this year would be miles long and half the voters would not be able to be there. This year promises to have record-breaking numbers in all ways, and this is good.

I already know who I plan to vote for: if you don't, then simply wait until after the debates. There is no conspiracy.

"Wonder why is there early voting this year in some states even before the debates?
Was there always early voting before in the same states? Or is it new to make one candidate look better before the debates? Is there any party who is responsible for the independent monitoring of these early voters' ballots? Hmmmm......"

Posted by: LizzabethCan | September 22, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

In a twisted sort of way I almost want McCain to win this election because four more years worth of failed Bush/McCain policies would for all intents and puposes be the end of the Republican party as we know it today. They would become the 4th party gadflies that they deserve to be.


The only question is, would this country survive it?


You people out there who live in economic downtrodden states like Ohio, Pa and Michigan etc, if you're stupid enough to vote for McCain then you will deserve every bit of continued econimic hardship that a "president McCain" would give you.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxT0s_I5WtA
.

Posted by: Stacey Hill | September 22, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse


From Politico:

"MCCAIN CAMP CRITICISM RIFE WITH ERRORS

By BEN SMITH | 9/22/08 3:58 PM EDT

Sen. John McCain’s top campaign aides convened a conference call today to complain of being called ‘liars.’ They pressed the media to scrutinize specific elements of Sen. Barack Obama’s record.

But the call was so rife with simple, often inexplicable misstatements of fact that it may have had the opposite effect: to deepen the perception, dangerous to McCain, that he and his aides have little regard for factual accuracy.

The errors in McCain strategist Steve Schmidt’s charges against Obama and Sen. Joe Biden were particularly notable because they seemed unnecessary. Schmidt repeatedly gilded the lily: He exaggerated the Biden family's already problematic ties to the credit card industry; Obama’s embarrassing relationship with a 1960s radical; and an Obama supporter’s over-the-top attack on Sarah Palin when — in each case — the truth would have been damaging enough."


.


They can't even accuse the "liberal" media of lying, without lying about it!

For shame!


.

Posted by: el_barto | September 22, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

The MEDIA is unfair..illegal

Palin and Cheney have been exempted from all laws and the media by the Supreme Leader behind the curtain.....

Posted by: dick cheney is a liar and corrupt | September 22, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Glad to hear Obama is pushing back against the absurdity that the media is slanted in his favor. It is a tired claim that rings hollow as we live in the ascendancy of Fox.

If anything, the media slants right out of concern for appearing to slant left.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

McCain in April declared that there had been "great progress economically" during the Bush years. On more than one occasion, he diagnosed Americans' concerns over the dismal U.S. economy as "psychological." (Phil Gramm, McCain's close friend and adviser supposedly excommunicated over his "whiners" remarks, was back with the campaign last week.) McCain, a man who owns eight homes nationwide, in March lectured Americans facing foreclosure that they ought to be "doing what is necessary -- working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets -- to make their payments on time." And when all else fails, McCain told the people of the economically devastated regions in Martin County, Kentucky and Youngstown, Ohio, there's always eBay.


In his defense, McCain's shocking tone-deafness may just be a matter of perspective. When you're as well off as he is, anything below a $5 million income (a figure exceeding that earned on average by the top 0.1% of Americans) seems middle class.


*The $100 Million Man*
Courtesy of his wife Cindy's beer distribution fortune (one her late father apparently chose not to share with her half-sister Kathleen), the McCains are worth well over $100 million. (In the two-page tax summary she eventually released to the public, Cindy McCain reported another $6 million in 2006.) As Salon reported back in 2000, the second Mrs. McCain's millions were essential in launching her husband's political career. Unsurprisingly, the Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti, who four years ago called Theresa Heinz-Kerry a "sugar mommy," has been silent on the topic of Cindy McCain.


*The Joys of (Eight) Home Ownership*
While fellow adulterer John Edwards was pilloried for his mansion, John McCain's eight homes around the country have received little notice or criticism. His properties include a 10 acre lake-side Sedona estate, euphemistically called a "cabin" by the McCain campaign, and a home featured in Architectural Digest. The one featuring "remote control window coverings" was recently put up for sale. Still, their formidable resources did not prevent the McCains from failing to pay taxes on a tony La Jolla, California condo used by Cindy's aged aunt.


*The Anheuser-Busch Windfall*
As it turns out, the beauty of globalization is in the eye of the beholder. While John McCain apparently played a critical role in facilitating DHL's takeover of Airborne (and with it, the looming loss of 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio), Cindy McCain is set to earn a staggering multi-million dollar pay-day from the acquisition of Anheuser-Busch by the Belgian beverage giant, In Bev. As the Wall Street Journal reported in July, Mrs. McCain runs the third largest Anheuser-Busch distributorship in the nation, and owns between $2.5 and $5 million in the company's stock. Amazingly, while Missouri's politicians of both parties lined up to try to block the sale, John McCain held a fundraiser in the Show Me State even as the In Bev deal was being finalized.


*McCain's $370,000 Personal Tax Break*
Earlier this year, the Center for American Progress analyzed John McCain's tax proposals. The conclusion? McCain's plan is radically more regressive than even that of President Bush, delivering 58% of its benefits to the wealthiest 1% of American taxpayers. McCain's born-again support for the Bush tax cuts has one additional bonus for Mr. Straight Talk: the McCains would save an estimated $373,000 a year.


*Paying Off $225,000 Credit Card Debt - Priceless*
That massive windfall from his own tax plan will come in handy for John McCain. As was reported in June, the McCains were carrying over $225,000 in credit card debt. The American Express card - don't leave your homes without it.


*Charity Begins at Home*
As Harpers documented earlier this year, the McCains are true believers in the old saying that charity begins at home:
.
Between 2001 and 2006, McCain contributed roughly $950,000 to [their] foundation. That accounted for all of its listed income other than for $100 that came from an anonymous donor. During that same period, the McCain foundation made contributions of roughly $1.6 million. More than $500,000 went to his kids' private schools, most of which was donated when his children were attending those institutions. So McCain apparently received major tax deductions for supporting elite schools attended by his children.
.
Ironically, the McCain campaign last week blasted Barack Obama for having attended a private school in Hawaii on scholarship. That attack came just weeks after John McCain held an event at his old prep school, Episcopal High, an institution where fees now top $38,000 a year.


*Private Jet Setters*
As the New York Times detailed back in April, John McCain enjoyed the use of his wife's private jet for his campaign, courtesy of election law loopholes he helped craft. Despite the controversy, McCain continued to use Cindy's corporate jet. For her part, Cindy McCain says that even with skyrocketing fuel costs, "in Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane."


*Help on the Homefront*
In these tough economic times, the McCains are able to stretch their household budget. As the AP reported in April, "McCain reported paying $136,572 in wages to household employees in 2007. Aides say the McCains pay for a caretaker for a cabin in Sedona, Ariz., child care for their teenage daughter, and a personal assistant for Cindy McCain."


*Well-Heeled in $520 Shoes*
If clothes make the man, then John McCain has it made. As Huffington Post noted in July, "He has worn a pair of $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes on every recent campaign stop - from a news conference with the Dalai Lama to a supermarket visit in Bethlehem, PA." It is altogether fitting that McCain wore the golden loafers during a golf outing with President George H.W. Bush in which he rode around in cart displaying the sign, "Property of Bush #41. Hands Off."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N38Ug_ugzXs
.

Posted by: McCain is a LIAR! | September 22, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Note how the Republican lackey Cilizza leaves out the $2 million Davis was paid. Perhaps Davis could explain what he did for the money, since he now claims "nothing." (His former coworkers are explicit in the Times that the money was a bribe to get access to McCain)

Posted by: Ura Hack | September 22, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Golly...

McSame is BLAMING someone again and this time its not Bush SEC Chairman.

Same old Same Old McSAME

When all else fails cry .. blame and slander.

DipStick/LipStick 08

Posted by: dick cheney is a liar and corrupt | September 22, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

MCCAIN IS JUST FOLLOWING HIS BOSS TALKING POINTS,RUSH THE PIG!CALLING THE MEDIA
THE DRIVEBYS,MCCAIN WHY DON'T YOU TALK ABOUT REAGAN BS SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS
THAT WHAT GOT THE MARKET SCREW IN THIS NOSEDIVE,NOW THATS SOMETHING MCCAIN KNOWS ABOUT,COULD'NT HIT A TARGET UNLESS HE BAIL ON TOP OF IT. SOOOO LOOOOG LOOOSER

OBAMA/BIDEN

Posted by: DAVID STOCKMAN | September 22, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Love, sounds as if you don't know much about political systems and what they mean, what the differences are. In a communist country (which you don't seem to understand), media is only a mouthpiece for the government.

In a republic like the USA, all forms of media have the editorial positions they prefer. Since you wrote "3 networks" I assume you mean ABC, CBS and NBC... they have that right also, guaranteed by the Constitution. I'd bet you approve highly of Fox -- I don't, but they also have a right to their editorial positions.

Before you blather opinions around, you might want to find out what the Constitution covers first. This is a democratic country: therefore, we have freedom of the press, whether you approve or not.

"The New York Times could well be published in one of the communist countries and feel right at home. Their paper is a diservice to the American people. We want unbias media and one that does not attempt to brainwash the American people as the NYT does. And by the way, I am an independent and vote both parties but am sick of our 3 major networks and almost all the nation's newspapers attempting to tell us what we should think and how we should vote. This should not happen in a democratic country."

Posted by: LizzabethCan | September 22, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I don't weigh in on these Karl Rove-style Republican circle jerks that usually accompany a story of this magnitude, but I thought I might chime in on this one, for better or worse.

The Republican Party since before Bill Clinton left office, with Newt Gingrich and his Contract to Screw America conservative manifesto/experimentation and his Ken Starr witchhunt, is why we are in this mess today. You know what I'm talking about: reduce the discourse of American Civics to Gutter Politics, then when someone like Obama comes along, who is an accomplished, articulate leader with good ideas, tar and feather him with these tactics to see what will stick in the court of public opinion, no matter the issues or his positions (which are many). They've set the bar so low that even John McCain can have a chance at public office. The man does not deserve to be President, he deserves to be in jail.

The Keating 5, this financial crisis, his lobbyist interloper staff, the growing signs of his Alzheimer's, etc. are not fooling anybody, Monsignor McCain. But the traditional media thinks that tearing down the 'maverick' label John McCain affixes himself in direct contradiction to the evidence about the man is somehow off-limits, is somehow taboo. I'd like to ask, who does the American media work for? Is there even a semblance of ethics in journalism anymore, or is everyone seriously that stupid and/or lazy to report the news rote, verbatim from dumb bimbos like Dana Perino, this yahoo Steve Schmidt, Tony Snow, or the President himself? Are they placating to the baser instincts of the electorate, or are they responsible for agitprop in contravention of these standards they supposedly voluntarily adhere to? I'd really like an answer to this question.

I'd like to think that voters aren't as stupid as Steve Schmidt, John McCain, and Sarah Palin believe. But I have to say I've grown cynical lately. I saw Bill Maher the other night saying he thought Americans were too stupid to vote. I'd like to think he's wrong, but look at the polls in the last month and they prove otherwise. Why John McCain has even a smidgen of a chance against Obama is beyond all reason. He is running the most deceptive, unpatriotic, sleaziest, corrupt, and baser campaigns in modern world history. When he gets really desparate he will probably resort to calling Obama a Tar Baby because that's the last card he will have left. Sadly, it might work due to the unyielding bigotry and racism in this country.

We've become the laughing stock of the first world. Racist, bigoted God Squad homophobes still have a shot at the most powerful office in the World, and they are supported by a cadre of intellectually dishonest, factually challenged thugs hoping to establish a new crime syndicate in the Oval office -- to replace the outgoing one in Cheney/Bush.

Really. This is not the country I grew to love and would defend with my life to save. I don't even recognize this country anymore. We get what we deserve if John McCain and Cheney with lipstick get elected.

Posted by: patriotgames | September 22, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I am SO sick of the whining about the media from McCain! Good grief. He and the 'straight talk express' has been a media darling for years, and the media wants nothing more than to keep the race tight (note stories with taglines such as 'McCain surges ahead' when McCain is ahead vs. 'Obama can't break 50%' when Obama is ahead). I think there has been more coverage of Obama in the MSM this year, but it has been quite negative at times. Check Media Matters, or the study by George Mason University, which shows the number of stories and the negative/positive slant. For example, we were treated to 3 straight weeks of 'presumptuous' charges when Obama had his successful foreign relations trip. My personal favorite was the week after the primaries, where the press corp brought McCain his favorite doughnuts, while simultaneously, some reporter accidentally called Obama 'Osama' in his press conference. It certainly hasn't been tough on McCain at all until recently - and that's because it has become basically impossible to hide his daily gaffes and flip flops. In fact, there was very little coverage of McCain's Spanish incident last week - the coverage would have been off the charts if Obama had caused a major press incident in Spain. Or what do you think the press would be saying if Michelle Obama ever stole drugs from a charity she was involved with? Too hard on McCain? Give me a break.

It has been a little tougher on Palin, but I think for some of the same reasons that it has been tough on Obama - the newer you are, the more stories there are. Frankly, the press should be outraged that Palin won't sit for interviews (there have only been two - only one with ABC and one with Hannity), but they have been largely silent on this fact because they are afraid McCain/Palin will call them sexist meanies if they complain. Obama sat down with O'Reilly for Pete's sake (on the 'terrorist fist bump' and 'Obama's baby mama' network) instead of wasting our time complaining about it.

Also, I don't think any of the people posting here that NYT is biased toward Obama actually reads the NYT (who, by the way, endorsed Hillary). I'm sure these same people would say WaPo is biased toward Obama, despite the weekly editorials by Fred Hiatt chastising Obama for not agreeing to McCain's town hall proposal, or criticizing Obama for his stance on Iraq - seriously, I'd say there have been at least 10 editiorials like this, not to mention weekly Obama bashing by Gerson, Krauth, Marcus, and the like.

Frankly, I have been wondering if the WaPo will ever bring up the Keating 5 either. Whether or not you think his close relationship with Keating influenced his decisions back then, the fact is McCain saw first hand a severe financial crisis caused by deregulation, a massive bailout and subsequent recession...and learned nothing from it. I have been absolutely baffled that this has been somehow 'off limits' for the press. My dad even said to me recently that McCain wasn't part of the Keating 5 - since he had never heard that this election cycle so it couldn't possibly be true.

Posted by: A campaign of whiners | September 22, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

All this polemic talk is absurd. The NY Times are corporatists first, and journalists second. David Brooks goes back and forth and he's a conservative; Thomas Friedman goes back and forth and he's a liberal; Bill Kristol is plain incorrect most of the time, the founder of PNAC, the architect of the current neo-conservative ideal set. These are editorialists for the Times. Their editorial staff is split. The Times support the war in Iraq, and Judith Miller works for the Manhattan Institute, a neo-conservative ideological think tank concerned with tax policy and foreign policy. Bill Keller let her tell outlandish stories and cover up the truth. So, don't get all upset because culturally the Times is liberal. Fiscally, economically, and foreign policy they support the status quo and have supported the ideology of the Bush group for most of the past eight years.

Steve Schmidt is an idiot. Barack Obama has been grilled for 18 months. finally the news gets some balls to ask McCain some hard questions, and respond to the attacks of his campaign relative to Obama, and they are biased and leftist. McCain has had a free ride and has been embraced by the media for years. I'm certain the Times will endorse Obama, just as I'm certain the WSJ and Fox will endorse McCain. This polemic crap is so disingenuous. Any charge against Obama will backfire on this campaign because Uncle John has and his team have quite a bit of culpability. Check out opensecrets.org and look at campaign finance for both candidates. McCain has oil, Obama education unions. McCain has Texas, Obama NY and Cal. This nation is so split in terms of politics and ideology that it isn't democratic. It is corporatist.

Posted by: Miguel | September 22, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Apparently, Schmidt is called "the Bullet" because of his bald head. Seems he's more of a crybaby pop-gun. Poor poor McCain isn't being treated fair, huh? Seems he's been given a free ride by the press since 2000 when he called them his base. Welcome to the NFL!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Get Real James-
McCain lacked the guts and the brains to stay out of Vietnam. When he was captured, not a successful strategy, it was the 5th time he destroyed a U.S. plane, and the first time it was done in combat. He admits to spilling his guts to the enemy while captured. I feel sorry for him for what he endured, but, all good intentions aside, he probably hurt U.S. forces more than he helped. The truth hurts.
He'll destroy America and look like a hero in the process.

Posted by: Charles | September 22, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

The beauty of this country is freedom of the press.

The press can publish anything it wants.

Look at the Fox News Channel! Talk about a Republican organ! They don't even hide it.

The "second interview of Sarah Palin" was by none other than Fox's good ole Sean Hannity. That is like Bill Clinton interviewing Obama.

Posted by: JT | September 22, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Schmidt to media:WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Posted by: nclwtk | September 22, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

More Roveian spin from uber spinmeister Shcmidt. For such would-be tough guys the Reps are always whining like little babies about the big bad liberal media and all their poor poor unfair treatment. As if these characters haven't controlled the entire government (and nearly ruined it) these last 8 years!

Wake Up America! Don't fall for this GARBAGE again!

Posted by: mybandy | September 22, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

If the NYT ran 40 investigative stories on McCain, we would have more dirt than we'd know what to do with. Corrupt arms deals, influence peddling, affairs, you name it... I can't even begin to imagine how bad it would be. Just an overview of Keating would expose McCain as the chablis swilling, $2000 loafer wearing, French cuff loving, effete snob that he is.

It would probably be tough getting him for an interview though, because it is hard to keep track of which of Cindy's houses he is staying in at any given time.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 22, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse


Repubs run around daily yelling about what the media ought to go find out about Obama. Its always this hypothectical b.s. that does not exist, or Tucker and Stevie would have already found it.

But those same inquiring minds are completely unable to accept the news stories that have ALREADY been proven about the mcfailin' twins. It is the GOP mental illness---run before it gets ya!

Posted by: chick | September 22, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!"

Posted by: A Few Good Men | September 22, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

The NYT might lean left, probably not a lot of doubt about that. But the WSJ leans right, so people can read either and make up their minds as to what they want to digest.
But McCain's manager needs to stop their complaining, it looks petty. It evens out in a lot of ways. Yea, some of MSNBCs commentators (Olberman, Maddow) are hopelessly in love with Obama but Fox News has played its role as the 24 hour attack dog for the McCain camp against Obama (which is OK according to Ailes because these people like Fox News & Friends, Cavuto, Hannity, and to a lesser extent O'Reilly are all just commentators and not newsmen). Honest people can see it, honest people can read a story and figure out if Palin took and kept the money for the bridge to nowhere or other stories where there is one set of facts.

Posted by: Fuzzy | September 22, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

wow

sweet Sarah draws 70,000 in Florida

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/696050.html

hey libby, it's gonne be a 3peat

2000.2004,2008

Posted by: deport_the_libs | September 22, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Boo hoo. why is everyone picking on the 'ole maverick?

funny, even the card board McCain looks angry but out of it. Amazing.

Posted by: realityISbiased | September 22, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Let's be serious. McCain doesn't own any houses. His wife Cindy does though, and she lets McCain borrow them. He didn't like the fact that his first wife waited for him while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, and after she became less attractive from a car accident, he dumped her because Cindy was a looker, and had the money to keep the looks. Opportunism, plain and simple.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 22, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

The beauty of this election is that the socialists who have taken over the once great Democratic Party (5th generation Democrat here) throw up the party's most left leaning candidate with the least amount of experience of any candidate in 100 years, and expect middle America to jump on board.

There was a time when the Dixiecrats and those crooks from Chicago almost destroyed the party by giving us-

the Ku Klux Klan,
White Primaries,
Poll Taxes,
"voter literacy tests",
Gerrymandering,
Union thugs intimidating voters,
the Daley machine,
the Prendergast machine,
Tammany Hall

If you think this is an improvemnt - you are either communist or a moron.

Posted by: Obama is a puppet | September 22, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

If the NYT actually ran 40 investigative journalism stories on Obama, he would be buried by now. Let's see a listing of those 40- if anyone counted them, they should be able to tell us the titles. From there, we might look at a few. For example, has the NYT done anything about following the astroturfing the Obama campaign has been doing? Lots of good investigation has already happened; shouldn't be hard to follow up on. Truth is, it will NEVER happen.

Posted by: FlyDiesel | September 22, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Any man who was imprisioned by the Vietnamese and tortured for not wanting to dishonor his fellow soldiers in the service of his country can have as many houses as he can afford to pay for. You my liberal friend, what exactly has Obama done? NOTHING! Except get his house with a convicted felon Tony Rezko. He can't get ONE house without some sort of "illegal" backroom deal..even when you could get a no credit check loan.

Posted by: Get Real James | September 22, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Bob Campbell - Go peddle your lies and deceit and nonsense somewhere else. The mess we are in right now IS the reponsibility of the Republican Party. ALmost single handed, Bush-McCain and like minded treasonous swine crippled this country, utterly and ruthlessly destroyed the middle class, handed our jobs over to foreign workers, sunk the dollar, banrupted the treasury, and sunk national morality to a new low. If the voters had any brains they would begin a witch hunt of Republican do whatever it take to rid ourselves once and for all of that nest of vermin. The NeoCon's are nothing more than old Soviet style communists and the sooner we get rid of you cockroaches, the sooner we can get dwon to repairing the damage you have done. In the meanwhile, write your representatives. Tell them to put the brakes on Bush's insane bailout plan. At the very least, that plan needs an outright ban on outsourcing and guest workers, limits on executive compensation (no greater than a standard GS salary level), and plenty of money for hearings and investigations and criminal proceedings against this entire nest of vermin from top to bottom.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 22, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

while ya'll are busy defending mccain and palin, mccain will be counting his cars and his wives and nodding off to sleep, and palin will be knitting baby booties, tanning and practicing Hooked on Phonics for her meeting with Bono.

Posted by: krover | September 22, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

GOP-
The right wing took all the dough. There's no money in liberal bias. To you guys,
truth has a liberal bias. Stop, whining.

Posted by: Charles | September 22, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

It's been utterly fascinating to watch so much of the media make complete asses of themselves shilling for Obama this campaign season. The biggest problem with all that, of course, is - what was the old line about no one ever going broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public? They just may buy what Obama and the NYT are selling.

Posted by: mrkwong | September 22, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I love the Washington Post and I am going to subscribe to The New York Times right now.

Posted by: TJW | September 22, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

McCain ran an add saying that Obama is a pedophile. McCain personally wrote the add. So why do we care what his campaign thinks about media coverage of him? He says nothing but lies that are so wildly untrue the general public thinks he is a laughing stock. The media is accurately reporting that McCain is polling 20 points below Obama because the public perceives McCain as a liar.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 22, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I love chablis, bree AND french cuffs! And, I'm working hard so that someday I will be able to afford them. Get off YOUR butt and make it happen!

Posted by: Tim | September 22, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

There is a distinct liberal bias in ALL media outlets. The softball questions, the support by Oprah, Hollywood support, MSNBC/DNC Cheerleaders(Matthews and Olberman) and the list goes on. It is no wonder Obama is shying away from Town Hall Meetings with McCain because the Obama Candidacy will go up in flames when it sees the light of day. Just like the Vampires that support him. How does a Billionaire (Oprah), Hollywood (Millionaires) relate to the average man? They don't!

Posted by: GOP Trumps DNC | September 22, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry Herr Schmidt, a few more years of republican dictatorship and there will be no disobedient media.

Posted by: Charles | September 22, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Here's a "surprise":


"The financial crisis that began in the United States spread to many corners of the globe. Now, the American bailout looks as if it is going global, too, a move that could raise its cost and intensify scrutiny by Congress and critics."


"Foreign banks, which were initially excluded from the plan, lobbied successfully over the weekend to be able to sell the toxic American mortgage debt owned by their American units to the Treasury, getting the same treatment as United States banks."


"The prospect of being locked out of the bailout set off alarm bells among chief executives of overseas banks whose American affiliates also hold distressed mortgage-related assets, like Barclays and UBS. The original text provided access to the $700 billion bailout for any financial institution based in the United States."
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/22global.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all



Sure, what the heck, let's have the American taxpayer bail out the foreign banks while we're at it. Gee, I wonder how foreign banks have enough sway with the administration to successfully lobby to be included in the bailout? Could it be their connections?


"Since 2002, Phil Gramm has been an executive with the U.S. operations of UBS, the giant Swiss Bank. An unintentionally hilarious interview with Gramm on the Wall Street Journal editorial page last week asserted that Gramm has "been a key instigator of some of the biggest money-making UBS deals of recent years." The interview was noteworthy not just for first-class butt-kissing, but for deliberately gliding over the avalanche of disasters in the past year that has turned UBS from a respected Swiss titan of discretion and risk management into a laughing stock."
.
http://www.slate.com/id/2194933/


Yup, McCain's BFF, economic guru, and registered lobbyist for UBS, Phil Gramm. What a coinky-dink!
.
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/05/26/daily15.html?ana=from_rss

Posted by: ace mcfunkenstein | September 22, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

This is the same New York Times that published Jayson Blair's articles- right?

Posted by: voter | September 22, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

OK, Truthwatch. Tell us why the story run by the NYT is false. You say it is, prove it. That'll be more than the McCain campaign can do (whining doesn't count as evidence).

Posted by: Pudding | September 22, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

If the New York times reported that the Fire Department had put out a fire, these GOP snobs would start screaming about the NYT's inherent anti-fire bias.

Schmidt really looks like he's been hitting the chablis and bree pretty hard. What kind of man walks around with such obviously manicured hands, and wears a shirt with French cuffs? French cuffs!? This guy is the epitome of out of touch, chablis and bree gobbling, suspender wearing elitist.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 22, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Steve Schmidt is Karl Rove's acolyte and Rove is the guy that got George Bush elected and don't we just love him for that? Let me count the ways: a financial meltdown, a war without end in Iraq, a deficit this year of over $400B (and that's not counting the $700B bailout).

They're both students of the School of Republican campaign dirty tricks, founded during the Nixon campaigns. You remember CREEP, the Committee to Re-Elect the President, the wonderful folks you brought us Watergate.

This fall voters should remember that Schmidt = Rove and McCain + Palin = Bush + Cheney.

Posted by: la Serenissma | September 22, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"Please take your banal, mind numbing drivel and preach it to the ignorant lemmings who are thirty for your socialist kool aid."

No one is thirty for anything. It's forty, you wing nut.

Posted by: bondjedi | September 22, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I say the same thing to Schmidt as he said when he heard that Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy were caught dissing he Palin VP pick (over a mic that was not supposed to be on)....SO WHAT?

Posted by: LMH | September 22, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

The New York Times is a discretted news source. Almost all of their stories can be shown to be false and most of their reporters admit making them up. They should be charged with fraud accordingly.

Posted by: Truth Watch | September 22, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I love all the liberal trolls touting the current mess the country is in is due to the Republicans.

If anyone has access to the internet - try looking at the markets since Clinton left office. A recession started 3 months prior to his departure, was quickly averted (even with 9/11) and has been soaring up until Jan 07. Um, what happened in Jan 07 - Oh, that's right, those concerned, caring, and omnipotent, elitist, Democrats took over congress.

A perfect example is S. 190; which was killed by the Democrats (I wonder why; Between Obama, Dodd, and Clinton; they received $390,000 from Freddie/Fannie) was a bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises which would have caused for serious regulatory over-sight for both agencies as it pertained to subprime mortgage participation?

BTW - McCain was a con-sponsor.

Please take your banal, mind numbing drivel and preach it to the ignorant lemmings who are thirty for your socialist kool aid.

Posted by: Bob Campbell | September 22, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Lets see if i got this right. The Mentally unstable one "McCain" , picks the most unqualified running mate in history. The ticket has a history of scandal. They both look into the camera on a daily basis and repeat lies that have been fact checked to be "false". McCain has voted repeatedly for deregulation. He admits he knows nothing about the economy , and says the fundamentals of our economy are strong. He doesn't know how many houses he owns , and he wears 500.00 shoes as he drives around in one of his 13 cars or skips across the country in his private jet. THEN HE CLAIMS he understands the struggles of every day people...........LOL. When McCain says " My Friends" he is talking about the lobbyist that run his Campaign , then they have the nerve to question anyone that dares to do the vetting on his unqualified VP choice that he failed to do........ McCain/Palin = Unstable/Unable

Posted by: James | September 22, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Journalist:

That you, Bernard Goldberg? How's that "second" career as a writer panning out?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

snobama - you are a racist!

Posted by: hon. C. Rangel | September 22, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Stuck on Stupid | September 22, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

If elected, I will raise enough taxes to pay for all this. I will start by requiring even Democrat congressmen to pay. even if it is their committee.

Posted by: snObama | September 22, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

HEY!

John McCain didn't spend 5 1/2 years in a Vietcong prison being tortured everyday so that a two bit paper can victimize him with truths!

Posted by: Sarah "I can see Russia" Palin | September 22, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

FACT:
As Governor, Palin supported providing social services and free room and board to the worst, most violent criminals in Alaska.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 22, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I read the NYT every day, and enjoy it. And, yes, they are hopelessly supportive of Obama. To say it is obvious would be obvious. But I have not found another well-balanced point of view in any of the other major media outlets. At least the quality of the writing at the NYT is fairly decent. I can make my up my own mind about what I believe.

Posted by: brando76 | September 22, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

It is all too obvious that the rag New York Times is in tank for the RATS. So the Obama response is that the RAG has written 40 investigation articles on Obama. What a crock! I would love to see the list of those puff pieces.

Posted by: Fisher | September 22, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

How about this, Washington Post and NY Times????
Only run words or comments or retorts that come DIRECTLY FROM THE CANDIDATES THEMSELVES, not from their paid flunkies!
You all are at fault for running every whiney butt thing anyone says. Palin wont talk to the media? then STOP RUNNING ANY STORIES ABOUT HER----BET SHE''LL CHANGE THAT LITTLE MIND OF HERS PRETTY FAST, EH? Too good to talk to the media? then no story! They desparately need free media coverage so make them EARN IT.

Posted by: krover | September 22, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Oh well, the McCain campaign will always have the WaPo editorial page on their side.

Posted by: RollaMO | September 22, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

As the depth of our financial crisis has unfolded over the past week, the drip, drip, drip of bad news has steadily rained down on John McCain's head. And now, after trying to falsely link Barack Obama to Fannie Mae:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014796.php


Today's news has to be filed under, you can't make this stuff up:


"Senator John McCain’s campaign manager (Rick Davis) 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."

"The value that he brought to the relationship was the closeness to Senator McCain and the possibility that Senator McCain was going to run for president again," said Robert McCarson, a former spokesman for Fannie Mae, who said that while he worked there from 2000 to 2002, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together paid Mr. Davis’s firm $35,000 a month. Mr. Davis "didn’t really do anything," Mr. McCarson, said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22mccain.html?_r=4&ei=5070&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=eta1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1222095974-d09UKetjInT4k0qhGcL2yw&oref=slogin


Rick Davis was paid nearly $2 million to...well, to do nothing except provide access to John McCain. And now that the government is getting ready to spend $700 billion to clean up the mess deregulation caused, it seems that that access has really paid off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUJ_Qn0AHTU
.

Posted by: agent orange | September 22, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"This is an organization that is completely, totally 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate," Schmidt said. "It is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside it's journalistic integrity to advocate for the defeat of John McCain."

I'm of the opinion that they, and everyone else, have good reasons to "defeat John McCain." It's the economy STUPID!!!

Posted by: Chuck Keating | September 22, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm so tired of the McCain campaign blaming the media for everything. They think the NYTimes picks on them, they think the entire news media is out to get Sarah Palin, they think the media is doing wrong by them because it points out their ads are false, they think Charlie Gibson was mean to Gov. Palin. I really want them to stop whining.

The media does not need to be intimidated by this. Both these candidates have a lot that needs to be covered. I personally would like it if all the media was aggressive in pursing both of these candidates. Also, put an end to the lying ads.

Posted by: Cindy | September 22, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

And isn't McCain the guy who had most of the press riding around on a bus with him like a bunch of tools for the better part of the last decade? Talk about bias. He's only pissed now that the press is calling him out as the two faced, say-anything-to-get-elected politician that he is. More of the same from McCain-Bush.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 22, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

We are here because an ethic of irresponsibility has swept through our government, leaving politicians with the belief they can waste billions and billions of your money on no-bid contracts for friends and contributors, slip pork projects into bills during the dead of night and spend billions on corporate tax breaks we can't afford and old programs we don't need," said Obama.

Like the ones I sent to my wife's hospital to get her that big raise. but never mind all that.

Posted by: snObama | September 22, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

So your sarcasm, "Snobama", is your way of saying you don't know. Talking points courtesy of McCain. How deep.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Rats! Where's Phil Gramm when you really need somebody to call out the "whiners"?

Posted by: Dormilona | September 22, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

The NYT endorsed McCain, remember?

Here's Schmidt's problem w/ the NYT -- they're telling the truth.

And they're the only credible publication doing so thoroughly and w/o fear.

Posted by: Steve W | September 22, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

ANY and EVERY distraction is needed right now.

Posted by: Lame McSame | September 22, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Hey Debate,

How are we paying for the war and the fall of Wall St.?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 3:38 PM

Let me take that one. Easy:

PRESENT

Posted by: snObama | September 22, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

You state this is about what [Schmidt]' believes is an unfair approach to the coverage of the two candidates to date.' However, I doubt if you believe in the slightest that Schmidt thinks this is unfair. He thinks its bad for his campaign, he couldn't care less about fairness. If the coverage WAS slanted, and it was slanted his way, why, that would be just fine. Why the once mighty press has let these right-wing goons cow them is beyond me. The fact that most of the best press disagrees with republicans? Well, like Harry Truman said, "I don't give them hell, I just tell the truth and they think it is hell". I ask you to do your job even if they think it is hell. Stop pretending their talking points are objective truth! Stop repeating their mantras! Get a pair!

Posted by: Joel | September 22, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

This is just FREAKIN' UNBELIEVABLE! Here we have financial industry interests potentially costing American taxpayers about ONE TRILLION DOLLARS and the price oil jumping $30 PER BARREL within the last several days and media outlets are posting dumbass allegations from Schmidt of the McCain campaign about media bias for Obama.

Doesn't anyone care that the DOLLAR IS GOING TO HELL IN A HELLBASKET under the policies of the Republican Party. Is America that dumb?!

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | September 22, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I don't condone bias in news stories, though it is inevitable even with journalists attempting to maintain integrity, but I find any comment from the McCain camp about a news sourse being biased laughable. I read news stories and commentary from multiple sources daily. The NYT makes an effort at objectivity and I have seen numerous articles that could be considered pro McCain and anti Obama from this sourse. I agree there may be a slight liberal bias in the NYT, but I can't even remember the last article or opinion piece from Fox News that was not blatantly and unapologetically biased toward conservatives in general and McCain in particular. I have also noticed a disturbing trend in the McCain campaign to hurry up and accuse someone of something they themselves are doing before somebody comments about them doing it, that way any response such as mine here can be considered sour grapes, no matter how true. It's another cynical and demeaning (to voters) tactic of politics used by everyone but brought to a high art by Republicans in these last three elections. Disgusting.

Posted by: learningisjoy | September 22, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Two thoughts:

1) The McCain campaign announces that this media outlet, or that media outlet are "in the tank for Obama", and the MSM picks it up and reports it without any critical analysis.

2) Journalism loses credibility because they report that they are accused of extreme bias, without challenging the assertion, or pointing out that it is political in nature.

Are you kidding me? If someone tells you that you stink at your job, do you put out a press release on your lack of quality without fact checking it? What a joke.

The Media-Political machine needs to get it together and let journalists be journalists. The McCain campaign is running on a central strategy of reporting alleged anti-McCain bias in the press, and the press is stunningly willing to run with this. The headlines should read "Flailing Candidate Lashes Out At Media For Lack of Issues, and Public Support".

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 22, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Hey Debate,

How are we paying for the war and the fall of Wall St.?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Is Steve Schmidt really Jeff Gannon in disguise?

Discuss amongst yourselves...

Posted by: Just asking | September 22, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

The inmates now own the asylum.

The GOP ticket has now become:

STEVE SCHMIDT/TUCKER BOUNDS '08 !!!

mccain is too vacant to speak.
barbie palin is too stupid to speak.

So here comes the ssecond string---and the stupid media gives them attention instead of demanding that the REAL candidates SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. This is beyond crazy, and even more so becasue the media has just given up and now takes Screaming Steve's comments as a news story.

What's next? Obama's dental hygenist gets pissed off at mccain and you print it ?? Wake up, media, you are being used and lampooned. Go FIND THE REAL CANDIDATES AND SHAME THEM INTO SPEAKING---don't let them hide behind these paid losers.

Posted by: rkover | September 22, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

It's decided, then: Steve Schmidt is a bully who can't take the heat.

And he knows that McCain's only strength is to lie, lie, lie.

Suddenly, McCain is a reformer? Like, in 24 hours, he became a reformer? He participated in oversight of Wall Street for years and years and now he needs a 9/11 commission to figure out what happened?

And all he can do is lie about Obama's position on taxes and lie about his own dubious record of total lockstep with Bush on legislation?

Americans need to pay attention to the news about this coming Wall Street bailout. If $1 of taxpayer money is on the line -- I'm hearing $180 billion -- then I'd like stock in return and those CEOs' forfeiture of any severance at all. Plus, payback their bonuses for the past few years.

Or McCain can return to his 13 houses, courtesy of his wife, with whom he cheated on his injured spouse.

Posted by: Phil Carson | September 22, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

McGeobles

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

sarah, didn't draw a crowd of 70,000
That is what they would like you to believe! As I recall, the mccain campaign said that they had a crowd of 1500 at the town hall but it was close to 350! so, keep sipping kool aid, and What does mccain do, when he is slipping? He picks the media! LOSER

Posted by: wow, not really | September 22, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Q: how will you fund all those enormous programs like the UN, the health care, the schools, the veterans, the retirement, the enviroment, medicare, social security, free houses, free food, etc?

Obama - tax, tax, tax. didn't you know? Because of my splendid programs, every year I am in office the "rich" include more and more tax paying "Patriotic" citizens. By the time all my programs are enacted, even those who make only $15,000 will be enormously rich and patriotic, contributing over half of thier profits to my re-election campaign.

thanks to me, everyone is now rich. now get out your checkbooks and give till it hurts.

Posted by: the debate | September 22, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

It's such a shame that America is becoming a third world nation, and even sadder that many Americans are not even aware of the drastic changes that are occurring in our country. Say goodbye to your SUV's, houses, jobs,social security, healthcare and education.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Of course, Schmidt's idea of a legitimate news organization is Fox News!!!

Based on the following, I am confident McCain's dis-information machine will attempt to slander Bloomberg as well:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=alfUj1r0Z10o&refer=politics

Bagdad Bob would be impressed with Steve Schmidt.

Posted by: Bill. P. | September 22, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I am sorry the McCain people want an alternative reality, if I were them I would want to change reality too. What was factually wrong with the New York Times article? Nothing! Maybe McCain should of checked out what Rick Davis had been doing before he went to work for McCain. McCain will just be four more years of Republican cronyism and to attack a news outlet for reporting the facts is outrageous.

Posted by: bradcpa | September 22, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

The media is in the tank...for themselves.

Come on Washington Post, NY Times, Wall Street Journal and others! Last week John McCain did a total flip-flop in favor federal regulations and then invoked the 1980s S&L Bailout as a solution that we need today. This opened the door to looking back during the 1980s with the Keating 5 and S&L Crisis and reminding VOTERS who was heavily involved in both, JOHN "Economy is not my strongpoint" MCCAIN!

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | September 22, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

wow

sweet Sarah draws 70,000 in Florida

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/696050.html

hey libby, it's gonne be a 3peat

2000.2004,2008

Posted by: deport_the_libs
*****************************
That many idiots and unemployed in one place? Was all your family there?

Posted by: poor repukes... | September 22, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

debate

Sen Mccain is Iran a threat?

(laughing)

"Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" (heh heh)

Gov Palin is Iran a threat?

It is... I can't see it from my house though...

there is a tree in the way."

Senator McCain how much does each lesson you learn cost us?

"a trillion dollars...one for deregulation and the s&l crisis, one for the Iraq War, and one because I had to take the lesson over about that deregulation thing...

Palin jumps in...
"but I am sure social security and healthcare won't cost as much for the lessons...you know since he is so close to those issues."

Posted by: dl | September 22, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

.

Re: 'Posted by: deport_the_libs | September 22, 2008 3:08 PM'


Clearly 'deport_the_libs' must be some Nobama impostor, because if you knew the truth, you'd know that our Angel Sarah drew 5,201,264,000,012,389 people to that rally.

That's right, more people than exist on the planet!

They used the same accounting firm as Enron, so you know that number's accurate!

But of course the LIBERAL ELITE Eastern media will tell you otherwise.

As my nanna used to say: if a cat dies, it's not a lie!

.
.

Posted by: el_barto | September 22, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Hey McCry Wy don't you and your Roviens try to talk about some reall issues.Let lipstick bulldog lady out from behind your curtain for a interview or two or 30 or 40 , if you expect the people (not born agian lemmings) to believe what you are selling.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Everybody knows REALITY has a well known liberal bias.

Posted by: Balbanes | September 22, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Steve Schmidt? I think you misspelled his last name, there's no 'c', 'm' or 'd'. Oh, and you forgt the 'head' suffix too.

Posted by: Roofelstoon | September 22, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Question: why do you think the race is so close? how will you govern in a leftist manner if half the country doesn't agree with you?

Obama: they will try to call me names, paint me black, say I am not like them.

Question: what are you talking about?

Posted by: the debate | September 22, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

That's right Obama!!! Tell it!!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

The NYT simply reported on a story that the American people have a right to know. They have done the same thing against Obama. It's ridiculous to think that because they report on a story, they are somehow biased. I'm an independent and am getting really tired of hearing the McCain camp "whine" all of the time. Notice, the McCain camp didn't argue any of the points - they just argued the "reporting" of the points. This is not China - the people have a right to hear all of the news here.

Posted by: Truth | September 22, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Fix -

Just for consideration ... the phrase used against the NYT, "advocate for the defeat of ..." is a VERY highly charged election law phrase.

It comes from footnote 52 of Buckley v. Valeo (election attorneys, please chuckle now), and is THE basis for what is referred to as "express advocacy." It is also the highest bar to hurdle in the political organization shadowlands. Any group caught doing that is in BIG trouble with the FEC.

Newspapers are generally exempt, so I don't know if that was meant to send a legal shot across the bow, but seemed to be an interesting coincidence if not.

Posted by: Mario Nicolais | September 22, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"Schmidt said. 'It is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside it's journalistic integrity to advocate for the defeat of John McCain.'"

Sheesh, looks as though WaPo has, as well, though a different sort of journalistic integrity. IT'S = it is. ITS = the possessive that should have been used in transcribing the quote above.

Grammar matters, people. It just does.

Posted by: Esquiver | September 22, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Keating 5 baby... Keating 5!!! If the NY Times doesn't write about it, perhaps the WaPo should.... come on Chris, talk to your editors.


Posted by: JakeD's shadow | September 22, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

its official, democrats are bitter bitter folks who couldnt win the last two elections and still pain and gripe about it. whose the real whiners now

Posted by: bryan | September 22, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

He's old look at him. I don't know how I even go to work knowing these do nothing old people are going to put me 700 Billion in debt to stuff there own pockets. I hate old people. What is the point in even trying just wish this whole place would burn.

Posted by: OLD PEOPlE SHOULD DIE | September 22, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama : who is this old guy? I thought I was running against a chick.

Posted by: the debate | September 22, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Chris: It was disappointing that your entire column focused on "inside baseball," i.e. the presumption that the charges against NYTimes were just campaign tactics and whether the tactic would work. What about the main story? Did you even consider the possibility that the campaign made the charge BECAUSE IT IS TRUE? When will WaPo do an in depth piece on the NYTimes bias?

Posted by: Gary | September 22, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Question: Is Iran a threat or not?

Obama: what day is it, Wednesday? Can the guy in the back with the cue cards hold them up a little higher please?

Posted by: the debate | September 22, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Schmidt. If Barack Obama is not elected, he cannot blame the press. They have done everything in their power and beyond to elect him. I have never witnessed a media bias like there is in this election and I'm a registered democrat!!!!

Posted by: kt | September 22, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

.

Vote McCain for president in 2008.

Because if you don't, Steve Schmidt will fit you in his belly!!

.

Posted by: el_barto | September 22, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

McCain knows all about bailing out rich bankers and screwing over middle class and poor people, he's been doing it for years.


-McCain - Founding Member of the Keating Five:

McCain was one of the "Keating Five," congressmen investigated on ethics charges for strenuously helping convicted racketeer Charles Keating after he gave them large campaign contributions and vacation trips.
Charles Keating was convicted of racketeering and fraud in both state and federal court after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion. His convictions were overturned on technicalities; for example, the federal conviction was overturned because jurors had heard about his state conviction, and his state charges because Judge Lance Ito (yes, that judge) screwed up jury instructions. Neither court cleared him, and he faces new trials in both courts.)

Though he was not convicted of anything, McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating after Keating gave McCain at least $112,00 in contributions. In the mid-1980s, McCain made at least 9 trips on Keating's airplanes, and 3 of those were to Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas. McCain's wife and father-in-law also were the largest investors (at $350,000) in a Keating shopping center; the Phoenix New Times called it a "sweetheart deal."


-McCain - Mafia Ties:

In 1995, McCain sent birthday regards, and regrets for not attending, to Joseph "Joe Bananas" Bonano, the head of the New York Bonano crime family, who had retired to Arizona. Another politician to send regrets was Governor Fife Symington, who has since been kicked out of office and convicted of 7 felonies relating to fraud and extortion.


Here's some straight-talk, my friends:

http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm
.

Posted by: out of touch | September 22, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"don't worry, we are actively attempting to set up a non-nonprofit to help you move to Europe, where you can wallow in the mediocrity of socialism and be happier."

Europe...Let's see...longer life expectancy despite lower health care expenditures, faster economic growth, a stronger currency, less crime, better food, nicer cities, little or no sprawl, modern infrastructure.

the US is becoming a third world country, but you wouldn't know it if you never travel.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

The Debate:

Question: Senator Obama, you voted against the Fannie Mae regulation and got record donations from them. explain?

Obama: um, well, like, um, uh, you know, let me just say, like, well,

Question - times up. Senator Mccain?

McCain - I called for the problem to be fixed but the Dem congress locked it up in dodd's committee.

Question - Senator Obama?

Obama - well. like, you know, um, uh, it's just that, like, well, um, uh

PRESENT. Can I get back to my waffle now?

Posted by: a look ahead | September 22, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

CRY BABY CRY ! S.SCHMIDT the "BUBBLEHEAD", WANTS THE WHOLE MEDIA TO FOCUS ON J.McCAIN/BUSH LIES,MISLEADS,FRAUD,HYPOCRISY,FLIP-FLOP AND MUD/SMEAR PROPAGANDA THAT HE DESIGNED. LOOOSERS ! GET READY FOR FISHING AFTER NEVEMBER.

Posted by: Dick | September 22, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Here's my take on this issue: A journalist sees a person say, "the sky is green" and another person says, "the sky is blue." Should the journalist report that one person says the sky is green & the sky is blue and not conclude the "green sky" person is wrong?

Republicans claim bias when a journalist notices a lie. They know they can do this: it creates debate within the media, it mobilizes their base, and it distracts voters from issues. Republicans are masters at getting people to vote against their own self interest.

I don't mean all Republicans of course...just the ones that hire people like Schmidt.

Posted by: SC Democrat | September 22, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse


.

WOW! John McCain seems unusually animated, standing behind Schmidt, don't you agree!


.
.
.

Posted by: el_barto | September 22, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

wow

sweet Sarah draws 70,000 in Florida

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/696050.html

hey libby, it's gonne be a 3peat

2000.2004,2008

Posted by: deport_the_libs | September 22, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Cry me a river, you bald Karl Rove wannabee a$$hat. That McCain let you take over his campaign and turn it into a pile of crap is all on you!!

Posted by: poor repukes... | September 22, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Poor Dan...relying on fortune cookies for his news.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I was once scheduled to visit our wounded troops over in Germany. Isn't that Presidential?

Only. at the last minute, the guy who works my teleprompter couldn't make it, so I decided to go shopping instead. and you say I can't make hard decision. H&M or Sterns, that's hard.

Posted by: snObama | September 22, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

My name is Bill Clinton, and Monica Lewinsky had oral sex with Matt Drudge in the Oval Office.

My name is OJ Simpson, and Geraldo Rivera killed Nicole and Ron.

My name is Richard Nixon, and Bob Woodward wiretapped the Dems.

My name is Clarence Thomas, and Nina Totenberg made dirty jokes about Long Dong Silver.

My name is Hillary Clinton, and FOX News came under sniper fire in the former Yugoslavia.

My name is Scooter Libby, and Tim Russert is leaking the names of CIA operatives to the media.

My name is John McCain, and the NY Times is whoring itself out as a lobbyist.

Repeat 7000 times, and eventually someone will believe it.

Posted by: blame the media | September 22, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Ahh yes, the normal tired, woo is me nonsense from another whiney conservative. You know for all there tough talk the right clearly can dish it out but can't take it. The media isn't biased, the Republicans have more to hide, that's a basic fact that's been proven time-and-time again.

It's what happens when a group of big ego, big money people awash in corporate and cultural power gets together, they feel sorry for themselves a little too quickly whenever a valid question of their past connections is asked. That's because they're out of touch and don't get that they're not above questioning.

No the Times and Post aren't biased, Republicans are just spoiled wimps who time and time again prove they can dish it out but can't take it. That's why they can't govern, they're out-of-touch with reality.

Posted by: Wade Tomlin | September 22, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

wow

sweet Sarah draws 70,000 in Florida

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/696050.html

hey libby, it's gonne be a 3peat

2000.2004,2008

Posted by: deport_the_libs | September 22, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

It's not just the NY Times that's in the tank with the Democrats and Barack Obama, it's the overwhelming number of all Main Stream Media news sources. Not only that but this has been going on for near 50 years.

Posted by: oldtimer | September 22, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

McCain's talking about the New York Times. Obama is talking about the Bush/McCain economy. Tactical error on the part of the McCain campaign--if Obama solidifies a lead among middle-class economy swing voters, this thing will be all over except for the voting and the crying. Why would you waste a single sound byte talking about something that isn't going to win over independent voters with 43 days to go a week after the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression?

Posted by: Eric | September 22, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

I would more likely believe what I get out of a fortune cookie, rather then what comes from NYT's WP, Newsweek, Time and a few others who simply spin Obama's daily news release and call it news.

Posted by: dan | September 22, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

again

1 trillion ...gone

2 trillion ....gone

3 trillion ...gone

who am I?

John mccain and Charles Keating and the deregulation s&L scandal

John Mccain and George Bush and the Iraq War

John mccain and his entire campaign staff (the largest contingency of deregulation lobbyists...this side of the "new" China)...and Gramm who wrote his economic platform for the next 4 to 8 years...

Posted by: dl | September 22, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

I once voted to reduce nuke transfers to terrorists. everyone else agreed and it was passed on a voice vote. Aren't I bold and trendsetting? I can stand up for what I believe in. who else would have had the guts to yell "Aye" along with the other 99 Senators?

Posted by: snObama | September 22, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

how dare ny times say obama good mcaine better will keep on attak go get russia france iran poland anyone who no do what we say cause we the usa and are the best in world palling real hottie and can shoot russia from her house and already has safety goggles for build bridge to nobody but coud get cheaper at walmart so vote super hottie palling not obama we need real hottie in white house with beehive and attack democrats real good at convection and was beayty queene of alaska and democrats really bad dont have hottie for vice pres and she has so much experiance and can shoot moose too

Posted by: d Miner | September 22, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

sour grapes mr. schmitt.

i hope they keep hammering McCain. He's earned it.

Posted by: jvf | September 22, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

It's odd how the political mind works. When a campaign accuses a newspaper of bias, it simply means "Why aren't you doing more PR for our candidate?"

Republicans and Democrats alike seem to want the media to puff their candidates and slam the opposition. But that's not the role of an independent media. That's what Fox news and Air America is about.

I like the lampooning at http://tunc.biz/Palin_Maxed_Out_Moms.htm. Mockery has a way of cutting to the core of an issue.

Posted by: Arianna | September 22, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

If you're John McCain, you know you're losing your fake "Man of the People" image when Newsweek begins a story:

"When you (McCain) have seven homes, that's a lot of garages to fill. After the fuss over the number of residences owned by the two presidential nominees, NEWSWEEK looked into the candidates' cars. And based on public vehicle-registration records,

Here's the score.

John and Cindy McCain: 13.
Barack and Michelle Obama: 1.
.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160091
.


Not to mention when it closes by noting that the car your wife (Cindy McCain) actually drives isn't even registered in her name, but in that of her massive beer distributorship.


But, uh, Obama is elitist because, uh, look over there! Arugula!!!

Posted by: Asper Chick | September 22, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

info

what's scarier than them leaving the tape of Palin up on youtube...

is that the comedienne playing the nominee...

is actually (sincerely) more qualified and knowledgable to actually be the vice president than the actual nominee.

How scary is that.

Posted by: dl | September 22, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I voted once. and it wasn't PRESENT. for me, that was a MAJOR accomplishment. And if I ever get the chance, I will vote to raise your taxes again and again. My peeps have it coming.

Posted by: snObama | September 22, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

laughing at the dems says

"don't worry, we are actively attempting to set up a non-nonprofit to help you move to Europe, where you can wallow in the mediocrity of socialism and be happier."

that might be cheaper than the present plan mccain and his cronies are doing...

you know instead of us going there... destroying our economy and bringing that "mediocrity of socialism" to our economy.

Posted by: dl | September 22, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

All you'd have to do is tune into SNL last Saturday to realize everything McCain's camp says is true.

Funny how NBC keeps removing the clip from youTube while allowing the clip of Fey mocking Palin to remain.

No, no media bias here.

Posted by: info | September 22, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Can we all just pretend like I have accomplished something in my life, anything, to warrant this new position for me. I promise to actually find myself this time around and stick with it to the end, not like before. I was so young last year.

Has anyone seen my VP? I have him scheduled for a MAJOR speech this week.

Posted by: snObama | September 22, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Like it or not, Steve Schmidt is right. Newspapers such as the NY Times and the Washington Post are clearly in the Obama camp. Not even worth debating this topic.

Posted by: Journalist | September 22, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

The picture is worth a thousand words

no wonder McCain and palin can't do hard hitting interviews with follow ups about any of the three times Mccain has been involved with losing us a trillion dollars as a country... and she can't answer anything outsdie the box...the cardboard box

because as the picture shows they actually are the cardboard box.

Posted by: dl | September 22, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

It's no mystery why the Republicans so persistently criticize the NY Times.

Republicans generally have a bigger chip on their shoulder than Democrats because Republicans are such two-faced hypocrites.

In other words, the difference between what you Republicans say and what you do is greater than any such difference among the Democrats. If you're a Republican reader you are by now too angry at me to think rationally, but I'll try to explain.

You claim to hate taxes and love free enterprise. But it's times like now that we realize your laissez-faire free enterprise is just a covert strategy to make you richer and everyone else poorer. It just plain doesn't work.

You've failed and you hate it when the NY Times says so. It's because of Wall Street Republicans like you that the common man now has to pay the tab to bail you out.

I'm sure you won't use the word "tax" to describe it. But that's the hypocrisy I'm talking about. Tax by any other name is still tax. Your taxes are higher than any tax proposed by the Democrats, perhaps higher than any tax in world history!!

So the next time you criticize the NY Times or try to tell us Barack Obama will raise our taxes and John McCain won't, just so you know, just realize your words now fall on deaf ears. We're onto you.

Posted by: Morton Redner | September 22, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"It may have a different goal"..?
Come on Chris, this a typical strategy for republican campaigns and you know it. If they get coverage they don't like they hammer the media for having the nerve to conduct proper journalism.

Basically Steve Schmidt is a scrupleless liar, willing to sink to any tactics to win. Rove is proud of him I'm sure..

Posted by: block | September 22, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

In other words. they don't like it when NYT prints the truth.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Attacking one of the nation's oldest & most trusted newspapers is unwise.
________________________________________

now that is funny. NYT stoped being a 'all the news that's fit to print' newspaper and started being socialist propoganda machine...oh, right around the time of woodstock

fact checking sub-items and then saying the whole is true is not reporting. it's spinning.

the reason they endorses McCain is because they were more terrified of the rest of the field. Thompson, Romney, etc. Now they know PalinDemoStruction is on it's way and they are even more scared. You think Palin is going to not do something because someone plays the race card like Sharpton or Jessie Jackson ? No, she won't. And that strikes fear in the heart of every lib. without emotion, they get voted off the island.

scream libby, scream

the american you think is almost gone, was never america. It was a socialist concotion born of the 60's and given voice by the most worthless generation ever, the baby boomers.

don't worry, we are actively attempting to set up a non-nonprofit to help you move to Europe, where you can wallow in the mediocrity of socialism and be happier.

Posted by: laughing at the dems | September 22, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Carol | September 22, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Whine whine. The GOP is pulling out all of its usual tricks. They don't have an honest campaign to run on so they lash out at the "liberal media" for pointing out the truth. Unfortunately, like clockwork, their zombies fall in line: "liberal media bad. grr."

McCain has run one of the most dishonest campaigns EVER (after saying what an "honorable" campaign he was going to run) and the media has given him a lot of leeway on that.

Maybe if he actually had decent policies to run on, he wouldn't have to resort to fear-mongering, dishonest attacks, and pretending that he's some kind of victim.

Posted by: McCain is a panderer | September 22, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Libba says
"Today's media exhibit all the signs of alcoholics who swear they don't have a problem. Reporters are so addicted they don't recognize how far past sobriety they have gone."

I would switch "alcoholics" with "educated smart people"...(you know a term that idiots and evil people try to make a bad thing)

or

I would switch Mccain supporters with "Media"...

who do you believe a bunch of educated smart people ...who suddenly don't have values because they are educated...

when are stupid people who make stupid comments like this going to actually have full use of their brains.

no wonder we got the last 8 years

it's evolution at work...

Posted by: dl | September 22, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

wow----first palin displaced poor old man Mccain, and now Stevie schmidt is in the headlines.....is Steve the candidate now? and why on earth does anyone care what sewage he is spewing today???

Come on media.....find the person running for president and leave these two-cent schmucks alone---Schmidt is just a paid flunkie, not a headliner!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: karl | September 22, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

SO Mr. Schmidt as per your candidate "the fundamentals of our economy are strong". That on a day when Lehman and Merrill Lynch had a few problems and Wall St. came begging. YUP, very strong. Oh! BTW didn't John McCain invent the Blackberry? Confusion between the SEC and the FEC, is this confusion the early sign of Alzheimer's? Can, we, the voters have a clarification on this from the V.P. nominee, or is she still being cossetted and protected from the media wolves? Perhaps the President of Germany, Mr. Putin will help out.

Posted by: Zahid | September 22, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

"THis 'media bias' charge is a classic rovian technique. "

This goes back well before Rove. Nixon did it a lot and we all know that "Dewey Beats Truman" photo.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 22, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone in the media that does not work for the Times doubt the McCain camps claim? You can just read the headlines and see the attacks on McCain and the props for Obama.

America is not that dumb...we know fair reporting when we see it. The New York Times is a tabloid newspaper that advocates for Obama the MSNBC is a tabloid TV station that advocates for Obama...CNN and ABC and CBS are having trouble staying neutral and lots of the pundits advocate for Obama they provide no balance...Fox who was once a Republican tank has tried to become more fair and balanced.

The same news outlets that favor Obama were also willing to participate in the demonization of Clinton and the false and abusive stories. Please note that there is a reason that many Hillary voters are Independent or McCain now and it's not racism....We want fair and free elections and unbiased reporting....


Do you think that the 69% that believe that news outlets are favoring Obama are simply mistaken or being led around by McCain? Nope....we know what we see and know what we read...but we don't believe it!

Posted by: Jackie | September 22, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"92% of news links relative to the campaign have led with "Obama ... [does something great]." "

Complete, bald faced lie. When in hell has any mainstream media source led with something like that?

Posted by: DDAWD | September 22, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I made a killing in gold today.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Instead of getting McCain to do it, now Schmidt is doing it himself??!! THis 'media bias' charge is a classic rovian technique. There are four attributes that characterizes Schmidt's strategy:

1. Strike at the very institutions of truth, and call their investigative work into doubt. Creating an environment of "my word against his". By charging media bias, the schmidt is able to convince the electorate that none of the media reports can be trusted...this is a critical step in the innoculation of his lies.
'
2. Create media spectacles to create a platform for propagation of his key messages. 'Celebrity' was designed to distract the electorate on what they should have seen - a very presidential Obama already making waves with world leaders and other citizens of the world...instead we got the spectacle of Paris. In his speech at the DNC, Obama's speech was perhaps the most detailed outlining of his plans....that was to call into question the very foundations of our existence - our core values...and how that translates to the change/plans he hopes to execute...instead, we were presented in the weeks to follow by the spectacle of Palin, her family drama (Schmidt KNEW her family drama would raise positive controversy and steal airtime), before she came out with her her public display of ineptitude and called into question McCain's roles. He tried to do this with sex for kindergartners...but the technique is getting old.

3. Focus on divisions rather than unity, to split the electorate based on ideology, color, religion, and exploit the some of the ill-informed war-hungry base....Pro abortion, anti abortion, gay marriage versus not, Black versus white, red versus blue, guns versus no guns...divisions that some people hold dear but have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on how the next president will steer us out of this crisis.

4. Repeat lies, repeat them again and again. With the credibility of the media now in challenge, it didnt matter if they get called out...they can keep reinforcing false claims, and lies...the aim is message retention and penetration. This is why almost half of the electorate still thinks that Obama is going to raise taxes on people earning UNDER $250000 (in fact he will lower taxes for people earning under that amount.) This is the power of their repeat-often-till-it-becomes-the-truth approach.

Judging by statistics, and past campaigns, this ploy has worked. The base now does not believe the media even when they are speaking the truth. This is playing very well to Tactic 1 on the Steve Schmidt/Karl Rove playbook.

One has to question the moral compass of a leader (McCain) who is willing to manipulate people on such a grand scale...and exploiting their wordst natures of division and prejudice.

Posted by: Andy | September 22, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"Over the past week, I have tallied headlines at the supposedly "neutral" news site I use as my brower's home page. 92% of news links relative to the campaign have led with "Obama ... [does something great]." The only time a headline has lead with "McCain ...," it's an accusation of wrongdoing or verbal gaffes. When both candidates are mentioned in a headline, Obama is posited as the Wise and Bold One and McCain as the Schlub."

Your problem is that the media is reporting the facts.

Posted by: tom | September 22, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm astonished by the restraint the press has shown. I have broken all the rules my mother taught me about talking politics with polite company because of the absurd and ridiculous nature of the McCain / Palin campaign.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Are any of the complainers actually going to vote? Now that is the question.

Posted by: Jeff H | September 22, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

The Death of the Republican Philosophy...


Last week was historic. It is a week that financial and economic people will study for generations. It also marked the end of certain elements of the Republican Party's ideology. Below are statements the Republican party can no longer claim as part of their core ideology.


*We are the party of small government:

Actually, this week simply added to the the end of this claim. Under Bush II, discretionary spending has increased from $640 billion to $1.040 trillion dollars. Also remember that Bush had a Republican controlled congress for 6 of those years. However, Paulson will send a package to Congress which totals $800 billion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aB_rf1rurtio&refer=home


The Treasury will create a new agency to buy bad debt (which the WSJ's Marketbeat blog has called the Treasury Garbage Machine). In short, when the Republicans control all branches of government they spend like drunken sailors.

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/


*We Support Free Markets:

Last week the SEC banned short-selling in financial shares:

The Securities and Exchange Commission has announced a ban on short-selling financial stocks over the next two weeks. Short-selling is essentially betting that a stock's price will go down. The SEC hopes the ban will reduce downward pressure on the market, but some think it will backfire. Wall Streeter Barry Ritholtz tells Madeleine Brand that the SEC action reverses 1,000 years of theory about how free markets should work.
In short, markets are supported when they are going up. But when they are going down, we're going to do everything we can to prevent them from going down.


*We Are the Party of Fiscal Responsibility:

No they aren't. No Republican president has ever balanced a budget. While Republicans have argued that Reagan had to contend with Democrats, Bush II did not for 6 years. Under this scenario where the Republicans controlled all branches of government they never even came close to balancing a budget.


*We are the Party of Personal Responsibility:

No you're not. When companies make really stupid decisions the Federal government bails them out. Just ask any shareholder of AIG. Or any taxpayer who will now help to finance the latest government bail-out.


Simply put, last week demonstrated a key point: when the going gets tough, the Republicans become socialists:

If you are a fan of irony, consider this: The conservative movement has utterly hated FDR, and his New Deal programs like Medicaid, Social Security, FDIC, Fannie Mae (1938), and the SEC for nearly 80 years. And for the past 8 years, a conservative was in the White House, with a very conservative agenda. For something like 16 of the past 18 years, the conservative dominated GOP has controlled Congress. Those are the facts.


We now see that the grand experiment of deregulation has ended, and ended badly. The deregulation movement is now an historical footnote, just another interest group, and once in power they turned into socialists. Indeed, judging by the actions of the conservatives in power, and not the empty rhetoric that comes out of think tanks, the conservative movement has effectively turned the United States into a massive Socialist state, an appendage of Communist Russia, China and Venezuela.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/the-new-new-dea.html


Whenever a Republican talking head says they are for any of the above mentioned things they should be questioned to explain how that statement (I'm for free markets) jibes with banning short selling of an entire sector of the market. Whenever a Republican says he is for smaller government, have him explain the nearly doubling of discretionary spending when the Republicans controlled all branches of government.


Simply put, this week demonstrated how hollow many of the Republican values are. They sound great on paper, but aren't put into practice when that result might cause financial harm to another Republican (McCain).

Posted by: DrainYou | September 22, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Lax lending regulations are only part of reason we are in this mess. Most banks had an incentive to loan money, they were not keeping the loan. They were selling them to Wall Street which packaged them up as CDO's and then sold to investors. The bank which originated the loan could have cared less that the people they were loaning money to had no way to pay it back. Once they got the loans off their books, they could care less.

Posted by: Ray Collins | September 22, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Reporting the fact that McCain's campaign manager got approximately $2 million from Fannie & Freddie is somehow "advocating for Obama?"

Posted by: tom | September 22, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

To those who question story "slants"....do they ever really take the time to check the facts of a story?
McCain was part of the Keating 5, involved in savings and loan scandal in 1980s.
McCain dumped disabled first wife for rich ***** Cindy that's playing computer secretary for him now.
McCain said something different in regards to what he would do as president every single day this past week, half of it in complete opposition to what his party even represents (LMAO--had to love the whole "workers" thing). Now his party is behind the biggest financial handout to corporations the world has ever seen. Redistribute to the rich via the govt, the very instrument they seek to reduce/vanish.
McCain has picked a complete whackjob from Alaska, claiming foreign policy experience is based on geographical location, and God told her so.
Honest to God, I'm not making any of this up. This is all stuff from McCain's past/present....how is that slanted (with the exception of my calling his trophy vice a whackjob...which is my own opinion, but I feel pretty good about it anyway--LOL)

Posted by: Suzanne | September 22, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Typical political hiding. Mr. Schmidt....do you deny the facts presented in the NY times article? All of the facts?

Or do you just want to shoot the messenger.

American Public knows that the media is not perfect. But we also want to know the facts. Mr. Schmidt, if you received over $2 million dollars for consulting services.....aren't you part of the wall street gang that your new Boss says is responsible for the mess?????? Senator McCain, you probably should temper your statements if you live in a glass house. Oh, and by the way this would be ONE MORE HOME that you own.

Posted by: R.Paul, california | September 22, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

@the Obama Plan:

Rezko writing a $1,000 check as a campaign contributor hardly sounds the alarm bells you insinuate it should. $1,000 in American politics is piddly and doesn't buy influence and access, unlike the destruction of regulations for your rich banking buddies does, e.g. millions or billions of dollars. For that you only have to look at one John McCain.

To say your insinuation is a stretch is putting it mildly. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. The Rezko thing has been completely debunked by FactCheck.org. I suggest you look there next time before espousing your rectal research.

Posted by: STILTON | September 22, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Long, long ago, the big oil concerns, wall street, the very rich, figured that they somehow had to control the U.S. They had only one alternative: Go with the conservative personality afraid of any kind of change, adhering blindly to their religion regardless of their hate for other races, striking out blindly at perceived "threats." The conspirators figured: We'll feed them emotional "facts" as we go along in order to get them to vote against open-mindedness and common sense. That is what we have. A nation divided by a very heavy line. Who will finally overcome, I wonder?

Posted by: Wilfredo Ocasio | September 22, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

McCain talking points:

Noun verb POW
Noun verb NY Times
Noun verb Levi
Noun verb Moose
Noun verb liberal media
Noun verb Keith Olbermann
Noun verb economy is fine
Noun verb Joe Lieberman
Noun verb Czechoslovakia
Noun verb free trade is good for unions
Noun verb lie
Noun verb fib
Noun verb calumny
Noun verb half-truth
Noun verb brewery
Noun verb Cindy McCain

Posted by: bondjedi | September 22, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

It is never a good idea to attack the media. The McCain campaign has done so repeatedly, and they will reap the results in the coming weeks.

Posted by: bodo | September 22, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

The Times is the same organ that believed and supported Mike Nifong the disgraced North Carolina D.A who brought fake charges against college athletes. It's not new at the Times.

Posted by: Newark | September 22, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Typical bush-league/Karl Rove tactic - blame the press. Actually its not even that original, we can thank Richard Milhous Nixon and his band of lying thieves for starting that one up.

Come on Schmidt, you can do better than that. You've been schooled with the best. Can't you at least come up with some original distractions?

Posted by: Bill P. | September 22, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza puts down Schmidt for 'believing' the NY Times takes "an unfair approach to the coverage of the two candidates."

News flash! Schmidt has a *lot* of company in that belief, out here in America. Today's media exhibit all the signs of alcoholics who swear they don't have a problem. Reporters are so addicted they don't recognize how far past sobriety they have gone.

Over the past week, I have tallied headlines at the supposedly "neutral" news site I use as my brower's home page. 92% of news links relative to the campaign have led with "Obama ... [does something great]." The only time a headline has lead with "McCain ...," it's an accusation of wrongdoing or verbal gaffes. When both candidates are mentioned in a headline, Obama is posited as the Wise and Bold One and McCain as the Schlub.

To this voter, the media has no credibility left.

Posted by: Libba | September 22, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

The Iseman nonsense was a non-story, and should not have been published by the Times.

The Davis story, though, is just plain journalism. It's just the sad state of the industry that makes it look partisan.

Posted by: John in Mpls | September 22, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

It's called workign the refs

and it worked on

wmd
Katrina
Mission Accomplished
judicial appointments
leaking a CIA operatives name and in essence blaming Russert.
closed door energy meetings
Abu Ghraib
ignoring our crumbling infrastructure as liberal taxing bologne
Presidential signing statements
our losing battle in Afghanistan
missing emails
wire taps

and the list goes on

same team
same tactics
same outcome

9th year.

Posted by: dl | September 22, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Remember, the NY times endorsed McCain and Clinton.... in the tank? I don't think so.
Nice try McCain camp.... anything to distract from the hell that McCain "The Deregulator" and the Bush "The Decider" have caused.


Posted by: JakeD's shadow | September 22, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

PLEASE IMMEDIATELY FORWARD TO WALTER PINCUS, WASH. POST RE: "DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS" ARTICLE IN TODAY'S EDITIONS

(cannot post to his article for unknown reasons)

"Directed Energy Weapons," even hand held models which emit silent, potentially lethal bursts of radiation, are widely deployed NOW among military, intelligence/security and law enforcement forces.

Mr. Pincus needs to follow up because this Senate report is incomplete at best and deceptive at worst.

This Senate report seems replete with disinformation when it states that this radiation-based weaponry is not operational. An April 2008 article in the FBI's Law Enforcement Bulletin discusses the issue and makes clear that the weaponry is currently in use.

Victims of so-called "organized gang stalking" maintain that directed energy weapons are being used against civilian targets to degrade their health.

A former mainstream media reporter who is now an internet columnist has written extensively about this, based on his own personal reporting.

His work can be found at http://members.nowpublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener | September 22, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

McCain needs to slow it down and take his nap.

Posted by: Sasha | September 22, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

most amusing that Obama's "qualifications" fit neatly into ten lines of text and half are college degrees, the other half, unmet expectations. Professor with no papers, senator with no votes. commmitteee member with no meetings. candidate with no answers.

Can't you Libs recognize a rhetorical questions when you see one?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 22, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Schmidt takes another page out of the Rove playbook. There's is nothing in the NYTImes that justifies his comment. It's factual and all sources are double checked. It's the same tactic used with the Plame/Wilson affair. If you don't like the message, shoot the messenger.

Posted by: Independent voter 15 | September 22, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Attacking one of the nation's oldest & most trusted newspapers is unwise.

Posted by: STILTON | September 22, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Damn, hate those pesky fact checkers! As to endorsements, they've endorsed Mike Bloomberg for mayor in past years, and Jacob Javits for senator consistently.

Posted by: CWBaris | September 22, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I would also hope they continue their so-called "media black out" on the basis that they have no obligation to meet with representatives of the Obama 08 campaign.

Posted by: Vern | September 22, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

McCain lies through his teeth. Stop whining and start talking about the economy. Going after the paper that endorsed his dishonest, low road candidacy and endorsed George Bush's war is not a wining strategy.

Posted by: Shoes1 | September 22, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

love234america - We have said it before and we'll say it again, the Marxists, the fuzzy minded one worlders, the NeoStalinist big government, big brother socialists are you troubled idiots on the right. The Bg Lie, accsuing your opponents of what you are guilty of, is an old tried and true ploy that stopped working once the entire world started noticing that NeoConservism is nothing more than old style Soviet communism trotted out with a Republican dress. Communism is a bankrupt ideology. It corrrupted and destroyed the Soviet Union, it has corrupted this country, and it will surely destroy us all. There needs to be a witch hunt to find you lying monsters, track you down, and lock you up!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 22, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

same team
same tactics
same outcome

and remember no one seems to be saying too much about

1st trillion Mccain Keating S&L and dereegulation lobby

2nd trillion Mccain Bush wmd Iraq War

3rd trillion Mcain Gramm, Black, Davis and the rest of the ...drum roll...deregulation lobbyists. (AGAIN!)

How many times does a politician have to be involved somewhere in the mix of losing us a trillion dollars and then saying..."oh I wasn't for THOSE policies that i was fighting for"

How many trillions is each economy lesson going to cost us to get mccain to learn about...

Healthcare?

Social Security?

Energy?

where he will fight tooth and nail saying some issue is "fact" and then when it fails he says he never said it...

how much?

and better yet...how would a Palin presidency education cost us?

throw these bums out

Posted by: dl | September 22, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama is a very accomplished and morally upright person. People have asked about his credentials, so I've compiled some of them here. I hope you share them with friends since they're useful for convincing undecided voters. As I've been door-knocking for the Obama campaign, I've found this list to help. I've had good results with this list. Thanks for spreading the good word!

1. Obama is currently the US Senator of Illinois: He won in 2004, took office in '05
2. He served for 8 years in the Illinois State Senate from 1997-2004.
3. He was professor at University of Chicago Law School from 1992-2004
4. In the city of Chicago, he worked as a Community Organizer for 3 years, where he helped to register over 150,000 voters
5. He has authored 2 books. The first being Dreams of My Father, which is autobiographical, and the 2nd is The Audacity of Hope - which is more about the importance of improving our political process.
6. He graduated with a law degree from Harvard University, where he served as the president of his school's law journal
7. He worked as a law associate at the law firm - Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland for 3 years
8. In the Senate, he has served on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Veterans' Affairs and Environment and Public Works
9. In the US Senate, he has sponsored 272 bills, and co-sponsored 834.
10. He has also served on important boards of directors, like the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, & the Lugenia Burns Hope Center

These are just a few of his achievements, and please feel free to share them with your friends and any undecided voters.

Posted by: Allen | September 22, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Okay, so the McCain campaign is complaining about the liberal press again.
Did they contradict one thing about what was written in the story?

It's Palin all over again. McCain bashes Obama about a lack of experience, then selects the least qualified candidate ever. (Don't take the press's word for it, take Republican Senator Chuck Hagel's word for it.)

Now attack Obama about not stopping Freddie Mac and Fannie May, but don't mention that your campaign manager's advocacy work for an organization promoting by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Posted by: amaikovich | September 22, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Come on Cilizza! You know this once-a-week complaining from Schmidt is nonsense. These guys are panicking and don't wanna talk about issues.

Posted by: RK | September 22, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

The saddest part of this election is how America has completely lost all independent media. It's no longer a question of mere "bias" which we all knew for years. But this time, the NYT and others have gone to brazen open cheerleading for one side and vicious hate and rumor mongering for the other.


Posted by: Vern | September 22, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Why if this Schmidt dude doesn't like the NY TIMES, why doesn't he go crying to his little buddy, Rupert Murdoch with his little infotainment empire that's trying to "pass" as news.....I thought they loved McCain over there.....
What a schmuck. Why don't you worry about the garbage your man spews out of his mouth. If your guy was even half a credible candidate, you would be out of a job.

Posted by: Suzanne | September 22, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Democrats complain that McCain is always lying.. so Steve Schmidt comes out and speaks the TRUTH.. That the Times is 150% in the tank for Obama.. and they still aren't happy.. will you make up your minds already.

Posted by: rss | September 22, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

For Pete's sake! Schmidt complains that some media outlet is biased once a week. This is NOT news. It is a Republican tactic to reduce the amount of questions directed at McCain-Palin.

And, sadly, it works. There's no way Palin should be running for VP without the same kind of media scrutiny that the other candidates are getting.

Posted by: Seneca | September 22, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

The McCain campaign lies on a daily basis. There is no nice way to put it. The campaign's problem is not with the New York Times; it is with any journalist, advocate, voter, or skeptic who dares ask a question of McCain or Palin or calls them on their many mis-statements, untruths, and exaggerations. This campaign expects 'deference' toward its candidates, not questions. Any campaign that hides its VP nominee from reporters, lets her repeat the same discredited statements about the Bridge to Nowhere day after day, and thinks the hosts of The View were too hard on their nominee deserves catcalls and mockery, not serious consideration by voters.

Posted by: HarrisCo | September 22, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Rezko had been leveraging his fundraising abilities to win alliances with other politicians long before Obama got his start. He applied for his first subsidized-housing loan from the City of Chicago six days after Mayor Richard M. Daley’s election in 1989. Within the first six years of Daley’s reign, Rezko’s company, Rezmar, received $24 million in government loans and $8.5 million in federal tax credits. Over the following decade, it would rake in more than $100 million in loans from the city, state, and federal governments, as well as private bank loans to fix up 30 Chicago buildings for low-income public housing.

Despite all this cheap and free taxpayer money, all of Rezko’s 30 buildings eventually ran into financial difficulties. As of 2007, 17 had gone into foreclosure. Six were boarded up and abandoned.

The City of Chicago sued Rezmar at least a dozen times for failing to heat its properties. During the winter of 1997, Rezmar claimed it lacked the funds to heat a 31-unit building in Englewood on the south side of Chicago — one of eleven Rezmar buildings in Obama’s state-senate district. Tenants there went without heat from late December 1996 through mid-February 1997. Despite his company’s financial hardship, Rezko signed a $1,000 check for the campaign fund of the newly elected state senator Barack Obama on January 14, 1997.

When Barack Obama talks about risky real-estate investments and failures of government oversight, remember how he put Illinois taxpayers on the hook for some of the worst real-estate investments of all — investments in his close friend and in other slum landlords who took the public’s money and betrayed their trust.

Posted by: the Obama plan | September 22, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Just when I think, is there anybody that's a bigger fool?, I realize there are people out there who will vote for John McBush.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Keep fooling me over & over & over with the same old crap, and I must be a RePUKElican.

We can see where stupid has taken us the last 8 years, let's not do it again...
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJThPjvscFs
.

Posted by: John McBush - dumber than a bag of rocks | September 22, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Last week, Sen. Barack Obama compared the Savings and Loan bailout of the late 1980s to the situation of the mortgage-securities markets today:

Too many S&Ls took advantage of the lax rules set by Washington to gamble that they could make big money in speculative real estate. . . . [T]hey made hundreds of billions in bad loans, knowing that if they lost money, the government would bail them out. And they were right. The gambles did not pay off, our economy went into recession, and the taxpayers ended up footing the bill. Sound familiar?

Indeed, it does sound familiar — it sounds a lot like what Barack Obama did to Illinois taxpayers as a state senator in Springfield. Using his elected office and his clout, Obama helped Tony Rezko and other unscrupulous low-income housing developers obtain millions of dollars in state grants, tax credits, low-interest loans, and regulatory advantages.

Taxpayers had no serious chance of recouping these “investments” in Rezko and other developers. And many beneficiaries went one step farther, depriving the public of even the benefits they could have gotten. These developers took government help to build low-income housing, and then let their buildings deteriorate into uninhabitable slums.


Posted by: if elected i promise.... | September 22, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

How hypocritical of the McCain campaign!!! Where is Steve Schmidt and the conservatives when Fox News is tearing down Barack and Michelle Obama 24hrs/7days a week.

Posted by: Octavio | September 22, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I guess McCain wants to do anything to distract us from the fact that he chose the worst economic advisers possible? Because, you know, it's the media's fault that people are trying to focus on issues rather than all the distracting nonsense McCain is floating.

McCain adviser Phil "It's a mental recession" Gramm wrote the Gramm-Leech-Bliley Act and other bits of deregulation that let the banks dig themselves into a deep hole. And now they're begging us to save them, but it would be "wrong" according to him for us to pass laws stopping them from jumping into holes in the first place. And don't worry. He may not be making comments any more, but McCain will still make him Treasury Secretary later! So we can expect a repeat of this in a decade or two (if not sooner).

And Carly Fiorina is one of those executives who got millions in a severance package after driving Hewlett-Packard into the ground. But hey! At least the HP stock recovered on the news that they'd fired her. But when McCain was railing against greed on Wall St., I guess he finally got mad at her. For saying that neither McCain nor Palin could run a company. Though, to be fair, it's not like she was any good at that, either.

And last night on CNN, Donald Trump endorsed McCain. He even peddled the lie that Obama would raise taxes. Though to be fair, Obama would raise Trump's taxes (Trump is among the wealthiest 5%) and CUT taxes for the rest of us in a revenue-neutral way. McCain would cut the taxes of the rich by a huge amount and increase the deficit to do so. When Trump was called on that, he tried to float the old "voodoo economics" about how taxing rich people is bad for the economy and that we shouldn't because rich people are more important than the rest of us!

So, given that McCain himself said that he doesn't understand the economy at all, that means he will be dependent on his advisers.

Can America afford to have a President who listens to people like these? Gramm CAUSED this meltdown by setting us up for failure. Is that how people want America to be run?

Posted by: JakeD | September 22, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Sure, in the early Clinton administration — the last time Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses — they passed the biggest tax increase in history, failed to pass health-care legislation, failed to reform welfare, pulled troops out of Somalia in the face of a foe that resembled extras from Mad Max, and focused the arsenal of democracy’s attention on Haiti, of all places. The surgeon general declared she wanted schools to teach teenage boys how to masturbate. But people forget about yesterday’s problems.

Since 1994, Democrats have been able to say, “our ideas would work perfectly, if we could just get it past those obstructionists standing in our way!” Their ads have chanted it, their cheerleaders in the media have echoed it, and their base fervently believes it. Yet next to nothing on their policy agenda is new or different from the last time around — the government can institute a health-care system that will take care of everyone, and higher taxes on the rich will cover all the costs; industry is polluting the earth and we can solve it by taxing carbon; we’ll stop Republicans from destroying Social Security; we can expand the good work of volunteerism by throwing massive federal funding at those programs.


America is already unimpressed with the Pelosi-Reid Congress. This is, with a few changes, who President Obama would be making laws with — a House Ways and Means chairman who doesn’t understand the tax laws he writes, a House speaker who does freelance diplomacy with dictators, a House Judiciary chairman who speculates in public about the “retroactive impeachment process,” and a House Transportation chairman whose immediate response to the bridge collapse in Minneapolis was to raise the gas tax to establish a bridge-repair trust fund. (Never mind that federal investigators later concluded the cause of the collapse was a design flaw, not insufficient maintenance.)


In the Senate, President Obama will have Robert Byrd holding the purse-strings in Appropriations, ensuring that most of the new president’s national initiatives will be based out of West Virginia. On the Banking Committee, Chris Dodd will watch the financial markets as carefully as he has for the past two years, while Barbara Boxer gets to put her stamp on climate-change legislation. If Joe Lieberman is tossed from his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, he may reconsider his party affiliation.

Posted by: a look ahead - the nighmare scenario | September 22, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama's ad that basically uses guilt by association to blame McCain of being racist towards Hispanics is the most despicable thing possible. It is time for McCain to start using guilt by association using Wright.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

its such a relief to see that i wasn't just imagining that the new york times was completely sold on barrack. i thought maybe since i'm conservative, i'm seeing things through biased lenses but hearing this just confirms what i knew inside. thanks schmidt

Posted by: theobamatimes | September 22, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Schmidt loves to blame the media for everything from global warming to in-grown toenails. He's on a sinking ship and he's too stupid to see it.

Posted by: pj451 | September 22, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama Baby, you are a good public speaker, but you are also the most liberal candidate that is the product of Chicago Southside Political Machine which has a long and rich history of political corruption of the first magnitude. You are indeed a child of that system and I don''t want you anywhere near the Oval Office...have a nice day.

Posted by: TPE | September 22, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Wake up and hear the birds singing, Chris. Try not to launch straightaway into one of your conventional modes of thinking. Candidate complaining about media => working the referee. Smell the coffee. Look at your Trail/FactChecker sections. Most of your opinion pieces, except for an occasional Ruth Marcus and a sometimes editorial, are slamming McCain like there is no tomorrow. Granted, you try to be as evenhanded as possible but to say that complaining about NYT is merely working the referee shows how easy a recourse mediocrity is for you guys. When was the last time you were at NYT? The only time that paper ran anything inconvenient for Obama was when Hillary was running. Heck, even then it was with great reluctance and followed everytime with something equally inconvenient for Hillary.

Posted by: Shame on NYT. Post ain't that objective either. | September 22, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

the McCain team has become a 'campaign of whiners.'

Posted by: Greengrass from IN | September 22, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

here's a lovely example of what makes Steve's blood boil---getting caught by the Miami Herald today:

"But Palin drew thousands more than the estimated 20,000 people that turned out for Bush. A fire rescue official estimated the crowd at 25,000 to 30,000, while the Republican Party of Florida pegged the audience at twice that size."

TWICE THAT SIZE---LIKE 25,000 ACTUALLY REALLY EQUALS 60,000. The pub party cannot stop itself from lying about everything. EVERYTHING.
At least Miami caught the lie....other media didnt' catch it fast enough and just used the pub numbers. Lie, lie lie.

Posted by: florida is hot | September 22, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Funny how McCain's troubles seem to be everyone's fault EXCEPT McCain's.

Posted by: MBW | September 22, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps if the McCain campaign would actually hold a press conference more than once every two months...

...or stop putting out information that is demonstrably false...

Maybe then the press would stop giving them such negative coverage.

Posted by: MBW | September 22, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

The irony of McCain complaining about media coverage when he 1) Hasnt had a press conference for over a month and 2) Has never allowed Sarah Palin a press conference ever!

This is apparantly the McCain "Lie of the Day", that they are are poor little media victims.

I guess they are tired of all those Americans whining about a fundamentally strong economy so figured they would get in on the act.

Posted by: Cal | September 22, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

If Schmidt and the rest of the McCain campaign told the truth, they wouldn't have the problem. How about Davis and the lobbying fees for Freddie and Fannie?

McCain's looks like senility's coming and soon. Look out as "Ms. Troopergate" may be our President after all.

Posted by: Go "Times" & "WAPO" | September 22, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

An amazing line from John McCain coming out in an actuarial magazine called Contingencies where ... well, let's let McCain tell us:

"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."
.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/


Obviously this was written before the Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch debacle of the last week, and just as obviously it came out before McCain did his about face from rabid free-market anti-regulation supply-sider into a populist, market hating regulator. What's funny is that it is hitting people's mailboxes this week exactly as the banking sector McCain is highlighting collapses.


But the fact is that the banking industry was collapsing long before this week, and long before this article was submitted to Contingencies. We've been in an accelerating free-fall in our financial industry for more than a year, starting in August 2007 (and sooner for many).


But McCain still as recently as August 2008 was pointing to the free-market, minimally-regulated banking industry as a model for what he wanted to do to the health care industry. While his model was collapsing all around him he was saying, "See how great this is? Let's build another one!"


The only reason he's changed sides on the issue is the same reason he put out an ad on stem cells and doesn't mention abortion -- he can't win the election by telling people what he really believes and what he is really going to do.


He thought he could play the free-market card on health care and win, but the debacle that reached a deafening crescendo (we hope) over the past week had made socialists of most hard-core libertarian Republicans. McCain knows that free-market deregulatory talk is a sure ticket back to his Senate seat in January, and so he has changed his language.


But I don't believe for a second that if he wins he won't continue to push deregulation and free-market policies. He believed in the free market in the face of Enron, Worldcom, the burst of the housing bubble, the failure of a series of banks in the summer, and all the way until public opinion turned.


He has proven that the only straight talk you'll get out of him now, assuming you ever did get real straight talk, is straight to his pollster to find out what the right thing to say is this week.


But when he wins and has a four year unbreakable lease then all bets are off and his cronies, handlers and right wing base will stick it to us again.

Posted by: McCain = Bush's third term | September 22, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Pure politics, nothing else. Repubs love nothing more than to have their candidates attack the media.

It's all strategy to unite the base.

Posted by: MBW | September 22, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I miss all my old friends. this campaign has driven a wedge between me and my preacher, me and my church, me and my wife, me and my donations, all my votes, everything I used to enjoy has been forced underground so no one figures out what I am about. I can't wait to get back into my own skin.

Posted by: snObama | September 22, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Someone asked about Senator Obama's qualifications... here ya go:
BA Political Science (specialty International Relations) - Columbia University
JD - Harvard (Editor & President Harvard Law Review)
8 years in Illinois senate
Taught Constitutional Law for 12 years... Sr Lecturer for 8 years.
3 years in the Senate... Senate Foreign Relations Committee... Senate Committee on
Veterans' Affairs... Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions... Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
List of sponsored legislation... http://tinyurl.com/6nzbg4

Posted by: baz | September 22, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

It's absence in it's self is telling. It will be a small part of Obamas end game I would assume. Not much to Obama's campaign so far has been left to chance. This will finish in a Crechendo with Obama playing the final note. A total slime of Mccain will be part of it. They will make him wish for the good old days as a POW when they are through with him.


==========
Where are the KEATING FIVE?

Posted by: Tuesday | September 22, 2008 2:00 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Here's to "advocating the defeat of John McCain" - as it should be!

As a Christian, It truly concerns me that so many other Christians are still falling for Republican manipulation tactics. Please consider everything carefully before you vote in November.

This is a very interesting read concerning McCain's choice of Palin from an unusual and surprising religious perspective. I highly recommend checking it out - and send it to those you think need to hear it:

http://www.newsflavor.com/Opinions/McCain-Hijacks-Christianity-Via-Palin.240929

Posted by: LaRae | September 22, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

oh, but they're OK that FOX News does nothing but pretty infomercials in support of McCain totally bashing Obama. This McCain group is like a bully that gets a thump on the head and cries all the way home. Do they not see themselves? Forget politics. I wouldn't want these folks as neighbors!

yik

Posted by: S forsyth | September 22, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "SOMEONE PLEASE LIST MCCAIN'S QUALIFICATION"

Are you serious? Here's a tip...try READING sometime. If you haven't been able to glean anything from Obama's bio (other than from FOX news), then it's not Obama's fault or our fault that you are too biased, lazy and stupid to do your homework.

Posted by: tdub | September 22, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

John F. Kennedy did not have executive experience and neither did Abraham Lincoln or F.D.R. All considered great leaders. There are plenty of other examples.
So what is all this talk about "executive experience"?

Is this really the thing the Republican party wants to hang it's hat on? Oh, and Lincoln and F.D.R., both lawyers.

What's this magical experience you are talking about, short of having been President?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Even the Washington Post admits, as a result of an internal self analysis, that the paper has indeed lived up to the claim that they are ALL-HUSSEIN, ALL-THE-TIME. Their OWN study showed that their coverage of hussein was substantially greater than that of McCain, and that the majority of their stories on TheOne were with a favorable bias. Any objective reader would come to the same conclusion. But the NYT has gone much further into hussein-love than even WaPo's most blatantly biased efforts.

As a result of the non-stop adulation for TheOne and their savage, pit bull attacks on Palin by the liberal media, millions of Americans have come to realize that they have fully and completely abandoned all journalistic ethics and will do anything to ensure victory for their favorite left-wing candidates.

(There are other, atrocious, recent failures of the media, of course. One of the best, most insightful documentaries ever was the Bill Moyers PBS broadcast "Buying the War". Moyers, a card-carrying member of loony-left, nonetheless clearly shows how the incompetent, ratings-obsessed, nonobjective media allowed CheneyBush to get away with their lies and deceitful actions to dupe the US and the world into their atrocious oil wars.)

It wasn't always so. The greats of journalism, like Edward R Murrow, are now rolling over in their grave at the despicable travesty that has overcome their profession. A free and unbiased press is (rather, it was) a cornerstone of democracy - with it's death the freedoms of Americans are now even more in jeopardy.

EVERYONE: VOTE ACCORDINGLY!

Posted by: ALEX H. | September 22, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Please Mr Schmidt, do tell us what the NY Times reported, that led you to say this today? Certainly, they must have lied about something. What did they report that was untrue???
Does anyone notice, this is just a blanket statement, based on nothing that happened.

Just anything they can do, to divert from the issues. And get the Republicon followers, to start foaming, as they are in the posts here.

Posted by: baz | September 22, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Much more problematic than Gramm-Leach-Bliley is the Community Reinvestment Act, a bit of legislative arm-twisting much beloved by Sen. Obama and his fellow Democrats. One of the reasons so many bad mortgage loans were made in the first place is that Barack Obama’s celebrated community organizers make their careers out of forcing banks to do so. ACORN, for which Obama worked, is one of many left-wing organizations that spent decades pressuring banks and bank regulators to do more to make mortgages available to people without much in the way of income, assets, or credit. These campaigns often were couched in racially inflammatory terms. The result was the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA empowers the FDIC and other banking regulators to punish those banks which do not lend to the poor and minorities at the level that Obama’s fellow community organizers would like. Among other things, mergers and acquisitions can be blocked if CRA inquisitors are not satisfied that their demands — which are political demands — have been met. There is a name for loans made to people who do not have the credit, assets, income, or down payment to qualify for a normal mortgage: subprime.

It was politics, too, that created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, enabled them to dominate the mortgage market, and implicitly took upon American taxpayers the risks of those business while the rewards were enjoyed, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, by largely Democratic political opportunists, who then gave generously to Democrats, the top recipients of their largesse being: Chris Dodd, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry, and Barack Obama. And it was politics that unwisely nationalized Fannie and Freddie without resolving the underlying moral hazard — private profit, public risk — that makes those institutions problematic. From this Senator Obama takes away the lesson that there has been a failure of the market, and that what is needed is more politics. In this analysis Obama is as wrong as it is possible to be.

The only reason there are returns on investments is that there is risk involved. Obama talks as though the government can create new regulations that will remove risk from the markets. It cannot. Investors sometimes make bad decisions. Businesses sometimes borrow too much money. “Some of these investment banks look like hedge funds, they’re so leveraged,” says one longtime Wall Street hand. But the markets are addressing that problem, too, in their own brutally Darwinian way: That’s why Bank of America is acquiring Merrill Lynch on the cheap.

Phil Gramm is a fine foil for Obama: a conservative Texan with a furry accent and an unsympathetic demeanor. He’s the perfect symbol — and Obama’s campaign is rooted in nothing but symbolism. The reality is the thousands of dollars in donations from Fannie Mae executives sitting in Obama’s campaign coffers. If Obama wants a villain, he doesn’t have far to look.

Posted by: Look in the mirror | September 22, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, yeah, Repubs whining about the so-called "liberal media" again. Same old, same old. Anytime the MediaCorp doesn't simply reprint Republican deceptions (with an occasional carefully-edited Dem response for "balance"), it somehow qualifies as "liberal bias".

The NYT has recently -- once or twice -- pointed out the, er, "not quite true" nature of what comes out of the McCain camp on a daily basis. Dear me, that's *so* unfairly slanted.

Posted by: Whippy | September 22, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-21-early-voting_N.htm#Close

Wonder why is there early voting this year in some states even before the debates?

Was there always early voting before in the same states?

Or is it new to make one candidate look better before the debates?

Is there any party who is responsible for the independent monitoring of these early voters' ballots?

Hmmmm......

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Instead of their constant whining and stonewalling, maybe at some point, the McCain campaign could actually take a moment to REFUTE many of the FACTS that paint a rather dim picture of their mis-truths, distortions and motivations on their plans for the country. They run around with these rhetorical smoke bombs, moving from lie to lie without any facts attached, hoping the lies will stick to a gullible public and mostly lazy media.

Posted by: tdub | September 22, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

adhd,

Here is one qualification: McCain knows who to pick rich women.

Posted by: Jose O | September 22, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign is losing it and they're losing it even more because they know they're losing it. Now they've got 20 year old college students breaking into people's email accounts looking for slime to throw. They've got no record of their own so all they can do is try to destroy someone else's. Axelrod and everyone in Chicago created this situation by putting a complete neophyte leftist up for President and creating a campaign based on Manufacturing Consent around him. Watching them work these last few days has been like the final scene in Cape Fear as DeNiro sinks beneath the water, speaking in Tongues. Unfortunately that's the real face of the Democratic party right now.

Posted by: Observer | September 22, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

He is not a 72 year old war mongering psychopath.
That alone is enough.

==========
SOMEONE PLEASE LIST OBAMA'S QUALIFICATION

Posted by: dhd | September 22, 2008 2:00 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

SOMEONE PLEASE LIST MCCAIN'S QUALIFICATION

Posted by: adhd | September 22, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

hey folks,
let's talk about mccain's disabled and dumped first wife and about vicki iseman! That's more fun that all this mean talk about the media!!!

One car. One house. One spouse.
Obama 08!

Posted by: stuart | September 22, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I'd rant like a madman, too, if it allowed me to not answer the question. Will Davis give back the $2 million?

Posted by: steve boyington | September 22, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

How can McCain complain about the NYT who endorsed his crocked campaign during the primaries? HYPOCRITE!

Posted by: BlueDog | September 22, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

SOMEONE PLEASE LIST OBAMA'S QUALIFICATION

Posted by: dhd | September 22, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Where are the KEATING FIVE?

Posted by: Tuesday | September 22, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Watch... that blow-hard O'Reilly on his Fuctor Report will bring this up.... ie NY TIMES is biased for Obama.
It'll be in his talking points or something... I guarantee it.

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | September 22, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

In an August 23 article on Sen. Barack Obama's selection of Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) as his vice-presidential running mate, the Los Angeles Times reported that "when he ran for president in 1988, Biden was accused of plagiarism when he did not credit Neil Kinnock, then leader of the British Labor Party, for much of his stump speech." Similarly, in an August 23 article, The New York Times reported that Biden "was forced to quit the 1988 presidential race in the face of accusations that he had plagiarized part of a speech from Neil Kinnock," and in an August 23 article, the Associated Press reported that Biden's 1988 run for president "ended badly" after he "was caught lifting lines from a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/joe_bidens_plagiarism_problem.html

Bidens kids...right Obama, lobbyist are bad ?

son and a brother of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) are accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner and an investor of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal that went sour, court records show.

The Democratic vice presidential candidate's son Hunter, 38, and brother James, 59, assert instead that their former partner defrauded them by misrepresenting his experience in the hedge fund industry and recommending that they hire a lawyer with felony convictions.

The legal actions have been playing out in New York State Supreme Court since 2007, and they focus on Hunter and James Biden's involvement in Paradigm Companies LLC, a hedge fund group. Hunter Biden, a Washington lobbyist, briefly served as president of the firm.

A lawsuit filed by their former partner Anthony Lotito Jr. asserts in court papers that the deal was crafted to get Hunter Biden out of lobbying because his father was concerned about the impact it would have on his bid for the White House. Biden was running for the Democratic nomination at the time the suit was filed.


so let's talk about 'judgment' libs. He threw Hillary over the cliff for this guy ?


let's see how long the dems and libs keep telling us how honest mr obama is as this gets ready to launch

http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/why_obama_is_mum.htm

what lifted Obama from obscurity to national prominence in such a short time you may wonder ?

why not ask Percy Sutton, the most powerful civil right activist in New York

We know enough about Obama’s Columbia grades to know how far they fall below the Harvard norm, likely even below the affirmative action-adjusted black norm at Harvard.

As far back as 1988, however, Obama had serious pull. He would need it. As previously reported, Khalid al-Mansour, principal adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, lobbied friends like Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton to intervene at Harvard on Obama’s behalf.

An orthodox Muslim, al-Mansour has not met the crackpot anti-Semitic theory he could not embrace. As for bin Talal, in October 2001, New York mayor Rudy Giuliani sent his $10 million relief check back un-cashed after the Saudi


billionaire blamed 9/11 on America.

Posted by: deport_the_libs | September 22, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

john harwood who is an NBC and CNBC contributor was fired from wall street journal-cause he is biased and doesn't measure up

Noone fair minded reads the NYT anyway but good fro smitty -attack attack these socialists

Last warning to Kudlow get out of NBC while you still have a carrer

Posted by: gary | September 22, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"my cat missing. surely it's mccain's fault. i had a flat tire last week. it's pailin's fault. the haircut lady messed up my hair. it's bush's fault!!

yup yup!

Posted by: undecided | September 22, 2008 1:46 PM "

hahahah....that's about right. The GOP's in bed with Big Tire and they're spreading nails on the streets leading to Obama rallies.

Posted by: kws | September 22, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

wHERE IS JEREMIAH WRIGHT

Posted by: dhd | September 22, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Watch out folks!!! HERE COMES THE MCCAIN WAAAAAAHMBULANCE!! Steve Schmidt and Tucker Bounds are retards who can't answer straight-forward questions about McCain's or Palin's background. And these are the folks currently in charge of the "Straight talk express" (which, by the way, is no straighter than George Michael or Elton John). Pathetic.

Posted by: vmunikoti | September 22, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Leave it to one of McCain's Rovebots (Schmidt) to cry when a media outlet decides that they aren't going to carry (lie for him) Grampy McCain's water for him anymore...


My Friend (s),
You owe $2,293.53 dollars to Wall Street Fat Cats Inc.... check, cash or charge?


How do you owe this money?

It's simple, George Bush wants a 700 Billion dollar bailout for Fat Cat bankers.
--700 Billion dollars divided by the current U.S. population = $2,293.53


How the did this happen?

Thank John McCain and his top economic advisor Phil Gramm.
In 1999, after 60 years of successful regulation under the 1933 Glass-Stegall Act Republicans like Phil Gramm, John McCain and a bunch of Bank Lobbyists deregulated the banking industry and allowed banks to get involved in overly risky lending.

As predicted, those banks failed, taking others with them and we're now facing another stock market meltdown.

This wasn't the first (or even the second) time something like this happened:
-In 1982, under Republican Ronald Reagan the Savings and Loan/Banking industry was deregulated.
-Again, Republicans Phil Gram, John McCain, Lobbyists and fat cats like Charles Keating decided deregulation was a good idea. Let the Savings and Loan Companies do what they want!

-John McCain took hundreds of thousands of dollars of gifts and campaign contributions from Keating in exchange for doing his bidding.
-John McCain's gift to Charles Keating was the deregulation of S & L banks.


The results were frighteningly similar:

-Tax payers bailed out Fat Cat Bankers like Charles Keating with $124.6 billion.

-Google "Keating 5" and you'll see it all.


The pattern is simple:

-Republicans like John McCain, Phil Gramm and Lobbyists deregulate.
-Wall Street gets rich.
-You pay the bill.


Now John McCain who self-identifies as a "deregulator" wants to:

1.) Deregulate Health Care
2.) Privatize Social Security
We can't afford more of the same with John McCain.

How do you think Health Care and Social Security will turn out if John McCain and Phil Gramm get their way?

Wall Street doesn't care if you lost your job, or if you can't make your mortgage. But when they need a bailout, it's "Hello Big Government!"


Thanks,
Wall Street Fat Cats Inc.

P.S.
Your kids owe $2,293.53 no matter how old they are.
Your parents owe $2,293.53 no matter how little they make.

Posted by: Bush + McCain = "W"orthless | September 22, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

It appears that the mccain campaign is in extreme panic mode and hence the screaming has started again.

Mccain and palin continue to be caught in lies by the media. The ethics probe of palin is reported by the media.....and on and on and on....the more truth the media reports, the more abusive and evil the schmidt types become. the idea is to INTIMIDATE THE MEDIA, TO USE THE STRONGARM HATE AND FEAR SO THAT THE MEDIA WILL COWER AND WHIMPER.....let's hope the media will not be beaten down by the vicious hatemongers like schmidt.

Posted by: brain | September 22, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Steve and karl are anal lovers.............

During the last week, the McCain campaign has unabashedly engaged in the active spreading of mistruths and falsehoods. It said that Barack Obama supported “comprehensive sex education” for children in kindergarten (“dishonest” and “deceptive” said The Washington Post); that Mr. Obama used the colloquial expression “lipstick on a pig” to describe Sarah Palin (G.O.P. Senator Orrin Hatch labeled the charge “ridiculous”); that Ms. Palin never accepted earmarks as governor of Alaska; (this is patently false, she actually requested $450 million in earmarks as governor); that Mr. Obama will raise taxes on middle-class families (his plan would actually give a tax cut to 80 percent of Americans); that his health care plan will force families into a government-run health care plan; (a public health expert quoted in this paper called that “inaccurate and false”); that Ms. Palin told Congress “thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere (she initially supported the bridge and kept the Congressional funds earmarked for the project); that Ms. Palin visited Ireland and Iraq (her airplane refueled in the former and never crossed the border into the latter). Now there are even reports that the McCain campaign fabricated crowd estimates for a recent rally in Virginia.

Even after the press debunked each of these lies, the McCain campaign has refused to concede the truth. Though news outlets have consistently shown that Ms. Palin’s claim about the Bridge to Nowhere is not true, she continues to repeat it to the point where MSNBC’s Hardball began to keep a running tally of how often Ms. Palin made the same false assertion on the campaign trail.

Posted by: dr | September 22, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

To believe there is no liberal bias,
is simply denial.
This is the same 'blame bush' atmosphere
that does nothing for our country.
This is like obama saying he will
cut 95% of individual income taxes,
by transferring the tax load to the
corporations we work for.
how will this tax burden not affect
the people who work for these corp's
or as shareholders own these corps.
If my company is forced to cut back
from obama's new taxes and my job
gets eliminated?
I will be be thankful the taxbreak
I never realized.
this is an example of media bias,
they keep pushing the 95% taxcut
figure, which is a rhetorical lie.
both from the fact that 40% of americans
pay no income tax, so it would actually
be a direct payout from me, to them,
thank you uncle sam,
and the fact that the tax burden on
the ECONOMY is going to INCREASE.
this is the opposite of the republican
idea of tax cut, which is to spur growth.
this obama 'taxcut' will be a weight
around the neck of our economy.
Yes I know, you as an american
have never heard anything about
the obama 'taxcut' except.
WOW YEAH he is going to increase
social programs AND give us all
money back!
why hasnt someone thought of this
before, this obama is a miracle worker.
THIS IS THE LIE
THEY REFER TO AS MEDIA BIAS
the same old say anything
to get elected bs
Nobama

Posted by: usa3 | September 22, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

The irony of all these liberal posters talking about hate, fear and division - when those are the only things the Obama campaign is about, is delicious.

HATE the person who has more than you - they're automatically evil, therefore they should be punished with even more taxes. What's theirs should be yours.

FEAR the supposed "cowboy mentality" of daring to stand up for our national interests. Such would detract from Barack's promised utopia of global citizenship. Everyone will love each other. OR ELSE.

DIVIDE people into races and use that to your advantage. If we don't vote for Barack, we're racist. If we elect him, then racism is over. Oh, and by the way, the rise of the oceans will stop too.

Posted by: JayEff | September 22, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Hey, SchmidtRove – are you claiming the Times story is false? If not, STFU and let the readers decide what's important.

Posted by: FlownOver | September 22, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Steve and karl are anal lovers

Posted by: dr | September 22, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

JD, exactly what is a fair endorsement. Supporting your side.

Bush 41 tried this same desperate strategy of attacking the media and other then exciting his base did zero to appeal to independent/swing voters who don't give a dime about who Hannity or the New York Times endorses. Exactly what does that do to avert a Hoover like meltdown? They are likely more curious with the collapse of Bear Sterns, AIG ,Bear Sterns, and Merrill and baffled that the right wing fringe would be of all times pushing seniors to privatize Social Security and encouraging seniors to put their Social Security money into these failing stocks.

Palin/McCain, Bush on Steroids.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 22, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

you must be a high school drop out who has absolutely no understanding of the economy and the housing problems to blame mccain or link him to the current economic crisis. and to blame bush.

my cat missing. surely it's mccain's fault. i had a flat tire last week. it's pailin's fault. the haircut lady messed up my hair. it's bush's fault!!

yup yup!

Posted by: undecided | September 22, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"Schmidt's remarks seem to be as much about laying a layer of guilt on the media for what he believes is an unfair approach to the coverage of the two candidates to date."

That, and trying to change the subject from his team's abysmal handling of the last week's worth of news on the economy. They still don't seem to have any real idea of how to address the problem, so seek to regain control of the news cycle.

Posted by: bsimon | September 22, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Of course the NYSlimes is biased. but who reads it anymore. Just like MSDNC, they have slunk to such ratings lows, and the stock is at an all time low as is their journalism, if you can call it that. notice Palin has bypassed the angry left wing media and gone directly to the people.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 22, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

The New York Times could well be published in one of the communist countries and feel right at home. Their paper is a diservice to the American people. We want unbias media and one that does not attempt to brainwash the American people as the NYT does. And by the way, I am an independent and vote both parties but am sick of our 3 major networks and almost all the nation's newspapers attempting to tell us what we should think and how we should vote. This should not happen in a democratic country.

Posted by: love234america | September 22, 2008 1:38 PM
**************

Okay, there are two thoughts at work here and they aren't playing by the same rules.
First, love, you're against the media's "bias." Can you be a little more specific than a blanket tirade against the NYT? How is the media "telling you how to vote"?
Second,how can you call yourself an independent? There isn't a single thing in your post that suggests you have an independent perspective on anything in this election.
So... maybe there's really only ONE thing going on here, and that's an annoyed, anti-media Republican going off on a rant.

Posted by: DB | September 22, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

The McCain campaign is a bloated monsters filled to overflow with the corrupt swine that brought the current economic mess down upon us. These are the lobbiests, the traders/traitors that are responsible for so much human misery, to much devistation that most of them deserve to be tried and executed for damage they have done to this country. And, one of the chief amoung them, Schmidt, has the unmittigated gaul to whine when one media outlet calls this nest of vermin on the horrors they have visited upon us. McCain, just this morning, reiterated his insane belief in free trade, in globalization, is shipping even more Amercian jobs off overseas. This corrupt humbug, this treasonous old fool, is so wrong, so dangerous, so corrupt, that it is a sick joke that he garners even 10% of the potential vote in the upcoming election. Only a suicidal fool or a one of those predatory Wall Street sorts would even consider voting for him.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 22, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

This is so funny!

Anybody see palin on FOX when sean hannity was licking her shoes? Where is the outrage there, Steve?

And it is NOT smart to constantly harangue the media....they always get the last word. Steve, whatcha gonna do if they JUST STOP PRINTING YOUR RANTS? Or, when palin finally has two sentences to string together, there aren't any cameras around anymore because they've all lost interest? Not too smart, bud.

Posted by: sal | September 22, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I cannot feel sorry for Republicans complaining about media bias when they have the greatest propaganda tool in America at their disposal- Fox News. They also have the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Washington Times, talk radio etc.

Posted by: Luke | September 22, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

This blame the media ploy is getting very old. The Republican party used to seem so strong. Now they act like petulant whiners when confronted with questions or facts.
When Sean Hannitty is the Republican equivalent of a serious newscaster, you know there's a problem. They're running their whole campaign like an infomercial.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 1:35 PM
***********

Totally agree, Anon.
The Republicans believe that campaigning equals governing, and the past eight years point out the limits of that philosophy. If McCain gets in, we'll see the US spiral even deeper into the toilet.

Posted by: DB | September 22, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

You tell them love234. Fox news, stop being completely biased!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

It would be disappointing if the New York Times (or any paper, blog or news site) allowed itself to be beaten into submission by a guy who's proud to be known as "The Bullet" (as if being bald was a sign of anything but excess testosterone).

Posted by: DB | September 22, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The New York Times could well be published in one of the communist countries and feel right at home. Their paper is a diservice to the American people. We want unbias media and one that does not attempt to brainwash the American people as the NYT does. And by the way, I am an independent and vote both parties but am sick of our 3 major networks and almost all the nation's newspapers attempting to tell us what we should think and how we should vote. This should not happen in a democratic country.

Posted by: love234america | September 22, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Is this a case of the po[s]t calling the kettle African American?

Posted by: tmorgan2008 | September 22, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Why does the media fall for the McCain campaign tactics - they call for "press conferences" via phone then expect you guys to all parrot their daily lies...er.. talking points. It's just insane. Suckers....

Posted by: Julie in VT | September 22, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

This blame the media ploy is getting very old. The Republican party used to seem so strong. Now they act like petulant whiners when confronted with questions or facts.
When Sean Hannitty is the Republican equivalent of a serious newscaster, you know there's a problem. They're running their whole campaign like an infomercial.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Fortunately thought, the NY Times is, and has been, marginalizing itself for years. How many scandals, charges of plagery, firings of drug and alcohol addicted writers and stories of the dictatorial ownership structure of threat NY rag have we read over the past 4 years alone?

The NY Crimes is extremely biased and should be reclassified as a 527 or a PAC.

Problem for the Times is - people are noticing.

Posted by: Robert NYC | September 22, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

The McCain campaign is going to intimidate the New York Times like they did MSNBC amd make them move some folk from the front office. What does the Republicans have on the media? The media seems to buckle when they say tighten up.

Posted by: jacquelyn kidd | September 22, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Why would America REWARD complete Republican failure ?

We wont.

Posted by: PulSamsara | September 22, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Guess Cillizza didn't tune into SNL for their cutting parody of the NYT:

"The final shot showed an image of a New York Times "headlines," which included, "While No Direct Evidence of Incest in Palin Family Emerges, Counter Evidence Remains Agonizingly Elusive" and "In a Small Alaska Town, Doubts Still Linger."


You telling me this columnist for the WaPo understands less about the bias of NYT than writers for SNL?


Course not. Cillizza is just providing cover fire for his collegues. And doing a remarakably bad job of it.

Posted by: stonhinged | September 22, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

I find it amusing that Schmidt, et al. complain vociferously about "media bias" -- then rely on the media to propagate their remarks to rile up the base.

Posted by: mnteng | September 22, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

NY Times editorial 1/25/2008, endorsing McCain in the repub primaries:

"Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field."

Where was Schmidt to moan about McCain's coverage back then? The NY Times picked McCain over Giuliani, for pete's sake.

"I was the public face of an organization that promoted homeownership for a number of years," he says. Uggggh. Who out there is falling for this crap? It's like saying "I wasn't a streetwalker, I was just a pimp."

Posted by: bondjedi | September 22, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

"Or that their stories don't slant negatively towards conservatives and Republicans?"
JD
----

Tell me something good they've done over the last 8 years and I'll rethink it.

For now, the Rebublican party has screwed the people of this nation in EVERY category imaginable.

At least they're thorough.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

How dare they tell the truth about his lobbying income!

We are going to reform those people!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

JD: Regan the cowboy is dead and so is the country that let his "mornig in America" BS destory it.

Posted by: luke | September 22, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Schmidt does seem to be protesting too much. Since his candidate has nothing to say about the issues of the moment (ie, the economic meltdown), it's time to beat up the liberal press again.... I don't hear Obama's camp complaining about FOX, the WSJ and other conservative MSM...

Posted by: RickJ | September 22, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Don't conflate reporting and editorial boards. The Wall Street Journal editorials are at least as biased as the NYT's, but both papers usually produce important independent journalism. The endorsement history of the editors should not be used as a smokescreen. The underlying story is valid, and the McCain camp is defensively deploying a distraction technique.

Posted by: Adam Hammond | September 22, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Hey Schmidt - tell it to Fox News - they've always let you cry on their shoulder before.

Posted by: A non-e-moose | September 22, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I'm guessing Schmidt has no quarrel with Fox News, however.

Posted by: Dave | September 22, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

No, the media isn't biased against McCain or the Republicans. It's simply that, when they do their job and actually analyze the positions of the two parties/candidates, it's hard to "put lipstick on that pig". More tax cuts for the wealthy in the face of large deficits? Ignore global warming? Drill, drill, drill as energy policy? Ads denigrating the fact that large numbers of Europeans came to an Obama rally and linking him to Paris Hilton. Claims of "country first" and then choosing Sarah Palin? Sarah Palin? It doesn't take more than an ounce of gray matter to see that the Republican agenda and candidates are very shallow. It's not bias, it's fact.

Posted by: Ron Morgan | September 22, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Wah, wah. That big ol' meanie NYT is beating up my ol' meanie.

Grow up.

Posted by: egc52556 | September 22, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Rs should complain about the NYT early and often, as JD pointed out.

On the other hand, each story stands on its own. Answering a specific charge in a story with the complaint of "media bias" is a mere avoidance device unless it is preceded by a denial of the charge and, hopefully, some authority or evidence to support the denial.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 22, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

WORKING THE "REF" -- AND THE "SYSTEM"?

It's a classic disinformation tactic: Accuse a media outlet of bias so its management sends word down the line to pull the punches.

The leverage goes beyond the campaign itself; certain government bureaucrats who favor one candidate over the other can be employed to apply external pressure that can't be directly linked to complaints of media bias.

That's probably a major reason why the mainstream media has yet to report THIS story:

FINANCIAL TERRORISM A ROOT CAUSE
OF WALL STREET MONEY MELTDOWN?

Once again, Congress is being asked to rush through emergency legislation, this time a law which will place effective control of the economy in the hands of the federal government, and socialize market risk.

Some might call it "national socialism."

Officials continue to blame lax lending policies on the part of the mortgage industry for spawning this crisis. But is that entirely true?

Is there a hidden agenda at work?

Could government targeting of U.S. citizens be a root cause of the crisis?

Consider this:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/targeting-u-s-citizens-govt-agencies-root-cause-wall-street-financial-crisis

OR
members.nowpublic.com/scrivener


Posted by: scrivener | September 22, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

There they go again...working the ref.

Posted by: Soonerthought.blogspot.com | September 22, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Here is a not so famous quote from someone in Sarah Palins Circle.
Im a f@*kin redneck, F**K with me Ill kick your A#@! Who said it?
http://www.hotpres.com


Watch Preview of the VP debates
http://www.veeppeek.com

Posted by: pastor123 | September 22, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

More Useless and baseless rhetoric and subversion.....

If you don't already do it, you really should be checking out the Anchorage Daily News site regularly, for local Palin news, editorials and op-eds, and its excellent Alaska Politics blog (special bonus Ted Stevens coverage there). Today, for example, the paper hits Palin hard in an editorial for abdicating to the McCain campaign on Troopergate.

And here's a brand-new gem on a stunning, overlooked McCain gaffe from David Hulen at the Alaska Politics blog:

Candidates spend a lot of time talking, and they all misspeak sometimes. But did anyone else notice this, from Wednesday's much-covered McCain-Palin Town Hall event in Grand Rapids, Mich., where Palin answered questions from people in the audience? McCain said this near the end of the clip below, as he's talking up Palin's foreign policy/national security credentials:

"I also know, if I might remind you, that she is commander of the Alaska National Guard. In fact, you may know that on Sept. 11 a large contingent of the Alaska Guard deployed to Iraq and her son happened to be one of them. So I think she understands our national security challenges..."

The ceremony Palin attended at Fort Wainwright last week didn't involve the Alaska National Guard. Palin's son is in the Army, and his unit - 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division - deployed to Iraq.

...and this man is supposed to know more about our military than anyone else....

McCaint should stick to playing with GI Joe dolls.......

Posted by: AlexP1 | September 22, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

why would there be any leverage to attacking a reporter for doing their job, especially at wapo, where it is such a rare thing? the "referee" should throw a freakin' flag for once! schmidt did get paid to be the "face", where is the bias? if there are lobbyists working for obama, do the story there too. if you see schmidt on television, there is NO doubt he is a lobbyist at heart, but to get paid that much to be anyone's face is another farce we have to swallow. no wonder they failed.

once mac mac loses this campaign, and loses his senate seat, he will be a lobbyist for Inbev or some oil or arms dealers association. of course, his honorary chairmanship of the nra is a given.

Posted by: PreAmerikkkan | September 22, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The louder this Schmidt guy yells, the more I wonder what he's trying to cover, reroute, or obfuscate. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Posted by: Lisa S | September 22, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Does he say that the NY Times story wasn't true? Schmidt is a Rove tool. Distract, distort, dissemble. Force the discussion to small things when huge issues are at stake.

McCain is just more of the same. Fear, Division and Hate. That's all they've got.

Bush/McCain. No More Years!!

Posted by: thebob.bob | September 22, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone here seriously argue that the NYTimes is fair when making their endorsements?

Or that their stories don't slant negatively towards conservatives and Republicans? When has the NYT *ever* endorsed the Republican candidate?

(Of course, the WaPo isn't much better)

I feel like the guy is arguing that the sky is blue.

Posted by: JD | September 22, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company