Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


McCain honcho Steve Schmidt: The New York Times is a “pro-Obama advocacy organization”; Update: Audio added

posted at 1:39 pm on September 22, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view

The occasion, ostensibly, is this story in the morning edition accusing campaign manager Rick Davis of being a paid shill for Fannie/Freddie, but the same is true for Times-bashing as it is for any of life’s finest pleasures:

You never really need a reason to do it.

Let me first say we are First Amendment absolutists on this campaign. The press and anybody who wishes to cover this race from a blogosphere perspective or from a media perspective is of course constitutionally protected with regard to writing whatever they want to write.

But let’s be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race, which is this: Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by an standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin, and excuses Sen. Obama. There is no level of public vetting with regard to Sen. Obama’s record, his background, his past statements. There is no level of outrage directed at his deceitful ads. This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let’s not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is. Everything that is read in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective, that it is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition to advocate for the defeat of one candidate, in this case John McCain, and advocate for the election of the other candidate, Barack Obama.

Not the first nuclear strike Schmidt’s launched on the media this month, but certainly the most gratifying. Needless to say, we’re a long way from Team Maverick touting the Times’s endorsement on its home page. To see if the message is penetrating with the public, click the image to watch. Exit question one: When does Schmidt get around to taking on Newsweek? Too small a target to warrant an atomic bomb like this one? Exit question two: By what Orwellian definition of the term is the guy who co-wrote the McCain-Feingold bill a “First Amendment absolutist”?

Update: A microphone captures the sound of the nuclear detonation:


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Finally…some straight talk on the legacy media from the McCain campaign.

t.ferg on September 22, 2008 at 1:41 PM

The only people to whom this will be a shock are the far-far-far-left lunatics who think there’s too much RIGHT-WING bias in the media. These people are so far off their rocker that it’s really not worth considering.

Not that it isn’t amusing to watch. :)

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 22, 2008 at 1:42 PM

What the NYT is biased?, probably the only paper that is…

right2bright on September 22, 2008 at 1:42 PM

Yeah!

lodge on September 22, 2008 at 1:42 PM

This is news?

Granted, it’s still cool for Schmidt to say it out loud, but it’s certainly not news.

thirteen28 on September 22, 2008 at 1:43 PM

wow — John’s camp sure decided to start the week on offense, huh?

/i LOVE it!

Buckaroo on September 22, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Newsweek is read by the all-important dentist office demographic.

By the time most of the readers of Newsweek get wind of Newsweek’s tireless pro-Obama lickspittle reporting, it will be 2010.

NoDonkey on September 22, 2008 at 1:44 PM

By what Orwellian definition of the term is the guy who co-wrote the McCain-Feingold bill a “First Amendment absolutist”?

Touche!

Nyog_of_the_Bog on September 22, 2008 at 1:45 PM

I’d be beyond thrilled if the McCain camp did the same for Joe Klein at Time. What a total Obama Whore that sad excuse for a man is.

Patrick S on September 22, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Exit question duly noted. At the same time, Obama isn’t exactly a paragon of free speech either (note the intimidation of opposing viewpoints at the Jewish rally and multiple interviews which HA has covered). This election isn’t a great one for “1st Amendment absolutists” either way, unfortunately.

Math_Mage on September 22, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Let me first say we are First Amendment absolutists on this campaign.

They are 150% 1st Am absolutists. Which is to say, that’s a crappy rhetoric.

Spirit of 1776 on September 22, 2008 at 1:46 PM

But I thought the NYT was one of your favs, AP. What gives?

VolMagic on September 22, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Patrick S on September 22, 2008 at 1:45 PM

True

Spirit of 1776 on September 22, 2008 at 1:46 PM

NoDonkey on September 22, 2008 at 1:44 PM

One wonders if the outdatedness of those provided documents is intentional….

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 22, 2008 at 1:47 PM

…And yet, McCain NEVER learns. He is still droning on and on about “reaching across the aisle” even though his old friends in the Democratic party and the media are biting his hands….still droning on and on about a “pathway to citizenship” for lawbreakers. Boo-hoo, so the Times doesn’t like you anymore, McCain. Welcome to the Republican party.

HornetSting on September 22, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Why is he singling out the New York Times?

johnsteele on September 22, 2008 at 1:47 PM

I would say… he’s…

Just calling a Spade a Spade….

But that would be RAAAACCCCCCIIIIIISSSSTTTTT!

Romeo13 on September 22, 2008 at 1:47 PM

The NYT is in the tank for Obama?

Hogwash!

You rednecks just don’t appreciate the nuance of their political analysis.

LimeyGeek on September 22, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Attaboy, Steve. If it feels good, do it!

a capella on September 22, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Grue in the Attic on September 22, 2008 at 1:42 PM

Haven’t seen you eating around HA lately. Indigestion?

tru2tx on September 22, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Reform the Liberal Media!

Something needs to be fixed!

Thats NOT responsible journalism ANYMORE, that’s advocacy FOR Obama and Liberal Democrats!

Thats how it’s been for Decades!

This gravy train needs to STOP!

Chakra Hammer on September 22, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Why is he singling out the New York Times?

johnsteele on September 22, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Rabid Publicationism

LimeyGeek on September 22, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Headlines you will never see on the NYT pages:
NEW YORK TIMES admits bias, but doesn’t care
Finally the NYT admits they are rooting for Obama, and doesn’t really care what the Republicans think.
“We think Obama is the best candidate”, the editor said and he feels than any further explanation is redundant…”just read the past articles and you will see why” he stated. “We lost last time, but not again”, the NYT vows. We are determined to choose the candidate, not the people. “We are the informed, not the people”, the change is coming. People are stupid and ignorant, which is why we need to have Obama lead them.

right2bright on September 22, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Take on the liberal democRAT media!

jencab on September 22, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Grue has been hunting moose for his stew.

HornetSting on September 22, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Hmmmm…. New York O’Times?

Romeo13 on September 22, 2008 at 1:49 PM

too much red meat….need some veggies. must order fries for lunch :D

YellowDawg on September 22, 2008 at 1:51 PM

Romeo13 on September 22, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Just call a Biased Liberal Journalist, a Biased Liberal Journalist

Just call a Communist Democrat Politician, a Communist Democrat Politician

let ‘er Rip.. :D

Chakra Hammer on September 22, 2008 at 1:52 PM

The only people to whom this will be a shock are the far-far-far-left lunatics who think there’s too much RIGHT-WING bias in the media

Yes. The same lobotomized simians that think the use of the pronoun “I” is evidence of a fascistic breach of the social contract.

LimeyGeek on September 22, 2008 at 1:52 PM

Chakra Hammer

No market solutions for you I guess. I take it by “reform” you mean government intervention? Do You work on Wall Street, by chance?

Grow Fins on September 22, 2008 at 1:52 PM

tru2tx on September 22, 2008 at 1:48 PM
HornetSting on September 22, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Bwahahahah….

I guess indigestion would be a rather appropriate way to put it, actually. Every few weeks I get burnt out on politics lately from sheer overload, so I take some time off. Consider it a sanity break. So I’m back, for a while now at least.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 22, 2008 at 1:52 PM

It took this long for someone to figure this out? The NYT practically had its people from Frank Rich to Maureen Dowd waving pro-B.O. flags from outside their windows for weeks, not to mention issue puff piece after puff piece making B.O. the greatest thing since the invention of sliced bread, while slamming McCain and Palin for so much as looking the wrong way.

For cripes sake, we had a Fine Arts fair in Naperville IL yesterday and there was a NYT booth right there in the midst of all the artwork trying to sign up new schmuck subscribers and the guy they had sitting there was wearing a B.O. support badge!

And Steve Schmidt is just seeing all this now?!!!

pilamaye on September 22, 2008 at 1:53 PM

The worst part about this is that the media WILL NOT properly report on the actions of politicians the media helps to elect.

First, a rag like the NY Times gets clown Obama elected.

So when clown Obama’s incompetence and corruption damages the country, does anyone really think the Times is going to report on it?

Of course not. Then the NY Times looks like idiots.

Instead, the NY Times turns into the defense attorney for the incompetent and corrupt Barack Obama.

Who needs a state run media, when the national media is so eager to serve as the Ministry of Propaganda for one political party?

NoDonkey on September 22, 2008 at 1:54 PM

All the snooze that’s $hit to print.

Steve Z on September 22, 2008 at 1:54 PM

When does the Winnergate story hit the MSM??? (crickets)

HawaiiLwyr on September 22, 2008 at 1:55 PM

too much red meat….need some veggies

How about arugula from Whole Foods in Iowa?

Steve Z on September 22, 2008 at 1:56 PM

the St. Petersburg Times (FL) is as bad as the NYT. I can expect a daily pro-Obama article from them and of course editorials bashing McCain. Their recent article about undecided voters NOT choosing to vote Republican because of Sara Palin would make the NYT proud. One voter said that Sarah Palin was really Dick Cheney all over again. So they publish that tripe as gospel. Then the St. Pete Times daily freebie paper, The TBT, repeats that statement in an article abou Gov. Palin’s Sunday visit to Florida. Totally unnecessary… well, I take that back. For them to be a prObama daily, they have to smear the McCain Palin ticket at every opportunity. I’m cancelling my subscription. They make me sick.

Monkeybrains220 on September 22, 2008 at 1:56 PM

How about arugula from Whole Foods in Iowa?

Steve Z on September 22, 2008 at 1:56 PM

:P well played

YellowDawg on September 22, 2008 at 1:57 PM

The base needed some more read meat. Good job.

MarkTheGreat on September 22, 2008 at 1:58 PM

John and the old gray lady….a tale of broken hearts and lost love…

right4life on September 22, 2008 at 1:59 PM

Finally…some straight talk on the legacy media from the McCain campaign.

Although not from McCain himself, who was last seen singing the praises of Andrew Cuomo.
.

flenser on September 22, 2008 at 2:01 PM

This is the tact McCain/Palin should take. Her statement of going to Washington not to meet the media, but to work for the people is a winning direction to take.
The voting public do not want to be told what to do. Having the candidates say “I don’t care about the media, I care about you” is, for the first time, an absolute winning strategy. The papers are becoming less and less important. And pundits are less important.
When CNN states how McCain is dissing the NYT, do you really think that will hurt his campaign? The campaign of “America First”, no, that cements it.
Stating we will talk to who we want, when we want, but we will always talk to the American people is a great campaign.

right2bright on September 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Hope there’s no fallout after this nuclear strike in the form of what had happened to Hillary when she blasted the media for being in the tank for the One.

tru2tx on September 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM

flenser on September 22, 2008 at 2:01 PM

unfortunately that is straight talk. mccain luvs the dems, always has.

right4life on September 22, 2008 at 2:03 PM

No market solutions for you I guess. I take it by “reform” you mean government intervention? Do You work on Wall Street, by chance?

Grow Fins on September 22, 2008 at 1:52 PM

There is a thing called the FEC, Journalistic Integrity, and there is also something called.. The FCC

NO however, people breaking laws and being corrupt(dishonest reporting, is propaganda it is Lying and being corrupt, they should be held accountable)

Chakra Hammer on September 22, 2008 at 2:03 PM

Oh, come on now. They don’t advocate for Obama all the time. Sometimes they’re busy publishing classified documents.

trubble on September 22, 2008 at 2:04 PM

Just when I start worrying about the Andrew Cuomo idiocy, the campaign hits its stride again.

Now, please, more about the protection racket run by Obama-Dodd-Biden-Kerry for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

JudetheFossil on September 22, 2008 at 2:05 PM

But I thought the NYT was one of your favs, AP. What gives?

VolMagic on September 22, 2008 at 1:46 PM

It needs to be said – there are some real idiots commenting on this site. I mean dumb-as-a-box-of-liberals idiots. Which may not be a coincidence.

flenser on September 22, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Oh, come on now. They don’t advocate for Obama all the time. Sometimes they’re busy publishing classified documents.

trubble on September 22, 2008 at 2:04 PM

Or going on berserk raids and hacking e-mail servers in the Alaskan wilderness.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 22, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Forget about the Rick Davis article, which frankly is accurate and not terrible damaging. There is a far worse “editorial observer” column in the NYT today that says “the McCain campaign continues to use racial code words.” Of the three examples it gives, two were statements made long ago by obscure Republican Congressmen with absolutely no connection to the McCain campaign; and the other one stretches the point to oblivion by suggesting that a McCain ad accusing Obama of being “disrespectful” to Gov. Palin (the “lipstick” ad) is racially charged.

Just disgraceful. I can’t even find the words anymore to express how outrageous this stuff is.

rockmom on September 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM

And the McCain camp should take the NYT to task over leaking sensitive military information and being a arm of the Left that has lifted up the ilk of Murtha and Reid who have endangered our military members by spouting forth insane and unproven accusations!

The Times is not worthy of being lining for bird cages!

freeus on September 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM

Just when I start worrying about the Andrew Cuomo idiocy, the campaign hits its stride again.

The problem is that if McCain wins McCain will be President, and not Schmidt. So start worrying again.

If Hillary is going to be put on the Supreme Court, I’d prefer that she be put there by a Democrat and not by a “Republican”.

flenser on September 22, 2008 at 2:07 PM

I read that Rockmom and mega dittos to the outrageous article. Words cannot describe how ticked off I was at that article!

freeus on September 22, 2008 at 2:08 PM

The Times is not worthy of being lining for bird cages!

freeus on September 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM

I’m curious – how much lower CAN you go? I can’t think of much worse than that. :)

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 22, 2008 at 2:08 PM

Maybe it’s time for a major speech on the subject of media bias. But like Schmidt has done here don’t make it sound like whining: focus on the point that the MSM are deceiving, and insulting the intelligence of, the American people.

Then there was Tapper’s piece this morning moaning about Palin’s lack of availability to the MSM. Why the hell should they make her available to journalists who are against her by a margin of 8 or 9 to 1? Screw them. Go over their heads and talk direct to the people. Let the MSM show the speech an analyse the crap out of it if they want. You think most Americans will care that the MSM doesn’t get to ambush her with their loaded questions?

And who ever decided that we needed an MSM anyway? Just give me the facts, and I’ll either make my own mind up, or seek out commentators that I respect and trust.

If McCain wins he should throw the Times out of the White House, citing their constant attempts to undermine the war effort by disseminating enemy propaganda and reveal national security secrets. The AP and a few others too.

Screw them all a thousand times over.

EnglishMike on September 22, 2008 at 2:08 PM

Whoa – they are actually talking about all of this on Fox right this moment.

At least it’s getting some airplay.

tru2tx on September 22, 2008 at 2:08 PM

From the video link:

An audience member goes ballistic on the media: “I just wanted to take an opportunity to ask the media: ‘Where’s your thirty investigators over in Chicago look at Ayers?’”

“We want the media to start doing their job and stop picking on little children because of their age and their pregnancies. Shame on you, shame on all of yous.”

This anger at media bias needs to be expressed to editors & reporters every day until they either get it, or they get laid off from the loss of viewers, listeners, and readers.

Loxodonta on September 22, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Lining a kitty litter box?

HornetSting on September 22, 2008 at 2:11 PM

If McCain wins he should throw the Times out of the White House, citing their constant attempts to undermine the war effort by disseminating enemy propaganda and reveal national security secrets. The AP and a few others too.

Screw them all a thousand times over.

Ding! I approve this message!

tru2tx on September 22, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Kill the messenger…

Tom_Shipley on September 22, 2008 at 2:15 PM

Seriously, don’t you think Palin could kick Obama’s ass? He’s like a little wuss hiding behind people and letting the Press do his fighting. Nutless wonder. All talk, no balls, nor conviction.

marklmail on September 22, 2008 at 2:19 PM

An audience member goes ballistic on the media: “I just wanted to take an opportunity to ask the media: ‘Where’s your thirty investigators over in Chicago look at Ayers?’”

Why haven’t we seen ANY major Media outlets connecting any dots to Obama, Rezko(Slumlord that financed Obama’s Campaigns) and Auchi(Billionaire Iraqi Baathist Banker living in France, connected to the Lehman Brothers Collapse, and also connected to the Corrupt Oil For food program)?

Chakra Hammer on September 22, 2008 at 2:19 PM

We don’t need to kill the messenger, Tom, it is doing a very good job of killing itself with its comically biased “reporting” in this campaign.

rockmom on September 22, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Kill the messenger liars…

flenser on September 22, 2008 at 2:21 PM

When people have trouble discerning whether an article is from the Onion or Iowahawk or one of the so called regular newspapers then you should know you have a problem.
The fact that shows like The Colbert Report or the Daily Show have more credibilty then the network news shows should have woke some executives up.
News shouldn’t be about the latest car chase in CA or celebrity nonsense story but rather, well you know news.
When was the last time you watched a news show, on TV local or national, that told you what congress did on any given day?
How many newspaper articles can you recall that gave you a peek into life in the Middle East, or Africa, or Asia?
They love to say how uninformed the American public is and yet it is their job to inform us.
Must be nice to say you suck at your job while blaming your customers.

Just A Grunt on September 22, 2008 at 2:21 PM

We don’t need to kill the messenger, Tom, it is doing a very good job of killing itself with its comically biased “reporting” in this campaign.

rockmom on September 22, 2008 at 2:19 PM

The MSM is not a messenger. A messenger shows up, gives the info he’s been asked/paid to pass on, and goes on his way.

A HERALD stands there and proclaims his message/the message of his employer/etc. and is just as guilty as the person in charge.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 22, 2008 at 2:21 PM

flenser on September 22, 2008 at 2:21 PM

Point to one lie in the NYTimes story.

Tom_Shipley on September 22, 2008 at 2:22 PM

If McCain wins he should throw the Times out of the White House

Bush should have done that. But if Bush didn’t then McCain sure as hell won’t.

flenser on September 22, 2008 at 2:23 PM

Kill the messenger…

Tom_Shipley on September 22, 2008 at 2:15 PM

If the messenger is caught opening someones mail and taking out 1/2 of the information, then repackaging it and then mailing it out.. Yes, that messenger is a criminal, and violated the law and the trust.

Chakra Hammer on September 22, 2008 at 2:24 PM

Point to one lie in the NYTimes story.

Which one?

Did you even read the article you are supposedly commenting on? It’s not about a specific Times story Obama press release.

flenser on September 22, 2008 at 2:25 PM

Kill the messenger…

Tom_Shipley on September 22, 2008 at 2:15 PM

If the messenger is caught opening someones mail and taking out 1/2 of the information, Adding in a Powered substance, then repackaging it and then mailing it out.. Yes, that messenger is a criminal, and violated the law and the trust.

Chakra Hammer on September 22, 2008 at 2:24 PM

Chakra Hammer on September 22, 2008 at 2:26 PM

A sample Times lie, for Shipley.

The Times editorializes that a group called The Real Truth About Obama should not be allowed to run its ads, which it deems to be filled with “smears” and “lies.” The group, writes the Times, “even employs an Obama-like voice pledging to make taxpayers pay for abortions, help minors conceal abortions from their parents, and legalize late-term abortions.”

Obama told Planned Parenthood in July 2007, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” That bill would require taxpayer funding of abortion, eliminate parental-involvement laws, and end restrictions on partial-birth abortion. That’s what the plain language of the act means, and it’s what its leading advocates say it would do. There’s a reason the Times doesn’t try to back up its claim that this organization is lying; it can’t. No wonder it would rather the group be silenced.

Face it, Shipley, you’re a fascist.

flenser on September 22, 2008 at 2:29 PM

BLOOMBERG BLAMES DEMOCRATS FOR MELTDOWN:

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission’s chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie’s position on the relevant accounting issue was not even “on the page” of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a “world-class regulator” that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan’s Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn’t be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie “continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,” he said. “We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn’t become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: “It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.”

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that’s worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

marklmail on September 22, 2008 at 2:32 PM

Exit question two: By what Orwellian definition of the term is the guy who co-wrote the McCain-Feingold bill a “First Amendment absolutist”?


AP asks, AP answers.

Aristotle on September 22, 2008 at 2:32 PM

Aristotle on September 22, 2008 at 2:32 PM

Nice.

Sad reality is there is no spin to create that. McCain’s words are his words.

Spirit of 1776 on September 22, 2008 at 2:39 PM

By the numbers…

The fourth estate
is a fifth column.

They put partisan politics first.
So don’t believe them for a second.

The Monster on September 22, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Let me first say we are First Amendment absolutists on this campaign.

I believe that “the campaign” are First Amendment absolutists. But it’s important to distinguish between the McCain campaign and McCain himself. The campaign are doing their best to seem fairly conservative, while McCain can’t stop singing the praises of left-wing hacks while attacking people on the right.

flenser on September 22, 2008 at 2:50 PM

THIS JUST IN– NY TIMES IN THE TANK FOR OBAMA!

It ain’t news, but I guess it’s news that someone from the McCain campaign actually came out and said it.

morganfrost on September 22, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Please PLEASE go nuclear on Newsweek, Mr. Schmidt! Remember the flushing the koran down the toilet stories that caused riots in Afghanistan a few years ago? I was literally down the street from one of those riots in Jalalabad. We weren’t in any danger but when Newsweek later came out and said eh well maybe we shouldn’t have printed that lolz!!!!11 I decided I wouldn’t be reading them anymore.

As for the Times… no comment on their publishing national security secrets. I’d rather not work myself into a rage at work.

hump1201 on September 22, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Why is he singling out the New York Times?

One at a time.

Jim Treacher on September 22, 2008 at 3:08 PM

I would say… he’s…

Just calling a Spade a Spade….

But that would be RAAAACCCCCCIIIIIISSSSTTTTT!

Romeo13 on September 22, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Those words in and of themselves are not racist. However, I cannot speak to your intended meaning.

The Race Card on September 22, 2008 at 3:09 PM

NYT seems to have forgotten that advocacy is not protected speech.

Nice to hear someone from Camp McCain pulling up their panties.

The Race Card on September 22, 2008 at 3:11 PM

“Kill the messenger…”

If only . . .

NoDonkey on September 22, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Point to one lie in the NYTimes story.

Tom_Shipley on September 22, 2008 at 2:22 PM

A front-page story in The New York Times on Tuesday (July 29) and articles in other news media reported that Ms. Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party for two years in the 1990’s.

Do you want more Tommy? You asked for one, you got it…the problem is this. You ask for these things as if when given the facts you actually will do something other then whine. Facts and liberals do not mix…

right2bright on September 22, 2008 at 3:45 PM

The REAL matter, is the coordinated omissions of REAL stories. They ignore REAL stories about Obama’s associations, partisan voting record, REAL agenda, etc etc etc — Those stories are hidden, and replaced with nonsense about Palin. There’s no denying it.

marklmail on September 22, 2008 at 4:55 PM

It’s good to see McCain’s camp finally stating “straight talk” on this issue.

Bush has been The Kind of the Numbnuts by letting this sort of thing fester for 8 years. Of course the NY Times are scum but Bush has only rarely countered outrageous lies and betrayals by the Times and others in the media. His placid, feeble minded inaction has seriously hurt this country. His near total inability to use the “bully pulpit” of the Presidency to lead this country in the right direction is one of his worst failures.

Django on September 22, 2008 at 5:00 PM

I liked that!

Terrye on September 22, 2008 at 6:05 PM

doh…I meant “King” not “Kind”…oy, I’m such a numbnuts.

Django on September 22, 2008 at 6:24 PM

What took him so long? The New York Times is and always has been a left wing propaganda machine.

rplat on September 22, 2008 at 6:24 PM

Exit question one: When does Schmidt get around to taking on Newsweek?

Does anyone still read that rag? And if he takes on Newsweak, then he’d have to take on Time, Us, the LA Times, and all of the other blatantly biased liberal publications. He wouldn’t have time for his real job.

rmgraha on September 22, 2008 at 7:56 PM

If McCain wins he should throw the Times out of the White House

Bush should have done that. But if Bush didn’t then McCain sure as hell won’t.

flenser on September 22, 2008 at 2:23 PM

Since McCain is trying to run as the anti-Bush, he would be able to easily justify it!

rmgraha on September 22, 2008 at 8:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.