September 24, 2008

"Did Palin Help McCain Among White Women?"

Actually, no.

136 comments:

D said...

Everyone is always fighting over the white wimmin for some reason.

Mateo said...

Why is this in the past tense? Is the election over?

Beldar said...

The question is always, "As compared to what." Mitt Romney? Kay Bailey Hutchison? Tim Pawlenty? Joe Lieberman?

It's way too soon to judge on this. Probably too soon to even take semi-meaningful polls on this.

She certainly helped with a whole lot of conservative folks of both genders and diverse racial and economic backgrounds who were unenthusiastic about McCain + [any generic white guy]. If Gallup says otherwise, it's just wrong.

Trevor Jackson said...

Is it time to start talking about when McCain will dump Palin for Romney?

Concerned Citizen said...

The article notes "Obama has significant problems among white women who are not college graduates -- among whom he has been losing to McCain by a 50% to 37% margin over the last month and a half -- and among married white women, among whom McCain has been winning by a 17-point margin, 54% to 37%."

Not good news if Sen. Obama wants to take western Pennsylvania or Ohio.

BJK said...

Every Republican Presidential nominee in the past 20 years has done better with white men than white women. To simply say this problem predates the Palin nomination isn't helpful or useful.

To determine whether the Palin nomination is actually making inroads against the 2004, 2000, or 1996 exit polling (flawed though that may have been).

Spread Eagle said...

The dirty little secret none of these pollsters want to even look at, let alone talk about, is that in every presidential election in American history the candidate who received the most white male votes won.

And Gallup isn't reliable in any event. They do weird "weighting" things on the numbers in the backroom they don't talk too much about.

Der Hahn said...

The 'problem' predates Palin because this is another example of the reality-based community ignoring reality, or at least soap-opera driven reporting.

Most of the people I've seen claiming Palin was picked to appeal to Hillary supporters are Democrats who then disparage the idea.

Democrats almost always hold the the votes of the majority of women, especially single women. Taking a look at who's been elected President since Reagan's 'gender gap' was identified, it's a fair assesment to say that it's more important for Obama to capture the votes of men (which he isn't) than for McCain to capture more votes from women.

It makes a heck of a lot more sense that part of the reason to pick Biden was to put a guy who looks like the pictures on dollar bills on the ticket, than to claim that abortion opponent Palin was going to appeal to voters who support pro-choice candidates.

goesh said...

White wimmin would have responded more favorably had they used his full name..... do you favor barack hussein obama as commander in chief of john 'squirrel jaw' mccain??

Peter V. Bella said...

Another meaningless, useless poll.

Yawn. Strecth.

Sloanasaurus said...

Palin helped out the Republican Base. Everyone in the know, knows this. Before, Palin the base was lathargic. After Palin, the base has rallied on something that is more than just being anti-Obama. This will increase Republican turn out in the places that matter.

AlphaLiberal said...

Just thought I'd pass this along, on the sexist attitude toward Sarah Palin from the McCain campaign:

"[F]rankly, I have had it, and I know a lot of other women out there are with me on this. I have had enough of the sexist treatment of Sarah Palin. It has to end. She was here in New York City today, meeting with world leaders at the U.N. And what did the McCain campaign do? They tried to ban reporters from covering those meetings. And they did ban reporters from asking Gov. Palin any questions.

"Tonight I call on the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment. This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong. She is tough. She is confident. And you claim she is ready to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff. Allow her to face down those pesky reporters.... Let her have a real news conference with real questions. By treating Sarah Palin different from the other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves. Free Sarah Palin. Free her from the chauvinistic chains you are binding her with. Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. So let her act like one."


Actually, I think they discovered Palin is a walking disaster and are afraid of letting her be seen without a protective handler bubble.

Or, maybe she just can't master the mixed up, shifting McCain positions on issues of the day. Really, how many bucket brigades can one campaign handle?

And, how strong a feminist is Sarah Palin now, Ann? So strong she must be sheltered from the press, from scrutiny, from criticism.

That's not a feminist we can believe in!

rcocean said...

Time to dump Palin for Joe Lieberman.

New Slogan: Joe Lieberman - "He did it before, he can do it again".

MadisonMan said...

"He did it before, he can do it again".

Lose?

Peter V. Bella said...

And, how strong a feminist is Sarah Palin now, Ann? So strong she must be sheltered from the press, from scrutiny, from criticism.

She is a stronger feminist than any out there. She is telling the media what they can do to them selves after they viciously attacked and demeaned her family. She knows they are partisan and in the toilet for Obama. Why should she subject herself to more abasement.

The press is not owed anything. They are not watch dogs or overseers. They are irresponsible voyeurs and nothing more.

Peter V. Bella said...

BTW, with Joe Biden out there making a fool out of himself every day, McCain and Palin do not need the media. Joe and the media are doing a good job of making Obama look like a goof.

kentuckyliz said...

It has to be said.

Where all da white women at?

Bissage said...

I don’t need no stinking poll to tell me Sen. Obama has a lock on the white wimmin vote.

Everything in life I need to know I learned from Mel Brooks.

Bissage said...

Ha!

Bissage said...

Props to Tibore.

Cedarford said...

Peter V. Bella said...
BTW, with Joe Biden out there making a fool out of himself every day, McCain and Palin do not need the media. Joe and the media are doing a good job of making Obama look like a goof.


Unfortunately, the main impact of the VPs is it gives media and bloggers something to talk about - but like all other races, the VP nominee will be mostly peripheral to vote's choices.

War and the economy.

1. Who do you have the most confidence in? Obama or McCain?

Old, erratic man, or slick-talking "Professor Arugula"?

2. Who represents the side you wish to punish for past failures more?

(That hurts Republicans who had Congress from 1994-2006 and the Presidency for 8 years more than screaming 9/11!!! 9/11! at Democrats does, to be honest. The crony capitalist meltdown may be one thing McCain cannot escape the "Bush bullet" on.)

3. Who really wants to change things in the Imperial City?

Chicago machine apparachnik and his Team Axelrod? Or the guy who claims to be a maverick but calls everyone in DC "My Dear Friends" and was a big champion of Corporatists and possibly more neocon-inspired War?

Concerned Citizen said...

It's interesting to think about the four candidates in the context of Joseph Campbell's analysis of the hero in myth and culture.

(Most of us know about Campbell because George Lucas is a big fan of his.)

The hero starts as a callow, even craven, youth. He is called to action. Enters a sort of supernatural world and is given special tools. He endures trials and is swallowed into the belly of the beast. He is reborn spiritually. Interestingly, he often meets a goddess/queenlike/mother-type figure. This union provides totality, a greater level of psychological health, creating even higher spiritual rebirth. Finally, he returns to the ordinary world to provide benefits to the common folk.

Seeking to be like his father and grandfather, who were both sea kings, the prankster prince loses his magic flying ship. He is tortured by demons. Broken physically and mentally, he finds strength in humility. Now an elder white-haired king of a desert world, he unites with not one but two women: the fertile queen who rules a distant fog-shrouded land of fantastic natural wealth and a crone who provides magic beverages of refreshment.

Who is the other? A wanderer who resorts to the tools of drugs to heighten his consciousness, who shuns martial valor, whose fathers abandoned him, whose mother sent him away, who falls under the spell of the wizards and their machine, who is spellbound by the soothsayer who damns the land, who lurks with a shadow-dwelling imp who destroys monuments and lures children pied-piper like to their doom, who weds a domineering woman, and who defeats the unsexed queen and her gelded deposed mate, the disgraced king.

Michael_H said...

Did Palin help McCain among White women?

On The View, not so much. In my neighborhood, based on the blossoming of 'Women For McCain' yard signs, I'd say plenty.

Concerned Citizen said...

Two last tid-bits...

The wanderer prince passes over the unerotic queen knowing that instead of making him whole she would have conspired to steal his throne. Instead, he chooses as his companion, the impotent gibbering fool, a jester biding his time, who speaks more honestly than the dark prince himself.

As for us, the peasants, we reel in Lear's financial hurricane:

Poor naked wretches, wheresoe’er you are,
That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm,
How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides,
Your looped and windowed raggedness, defend you
From seasons such as these? (3.4.28)

john said...

Alphaliberal said Just thought I'd pass this along, on the sexist attitude toward Sarah Palin from the McCain campaign

When the hell did CNN's Campbell Brown join the McCain campaign? The quote is hers, you idiot.

Read the article correctly, then stop lying.

jdeeripper said...

White Men More of a Problem for Obama Than White Women.

Isn't that true for all black males?

AJ Lynch said...

Palin has it all no?

When I see young girls at Palin events and they are wearing T-shirts that say "Girls for Palin", I assume these young girls get it. They want what Palin has.

I don't believe this article is true or accurate.

mcg said...

Poor Campbell Brown. To borrow a condescending quote from Barack Obama, "Some people haven't bean reading their Bibles." And yes, the Bible addresses the very issue of Palin keeping the MSM at arm's length.

Matthew 7:6: Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

mcg said...

When the hell did CNN's Campbell Brown join the McCain campaign? The quote is hers, you idiot.

As much as I hate defending AlphaLiberal, he is guilty of nothing more than poor construction here. I am reasonably sure he was simply parroting Campbell Brown's accusation that it's the McCain campaign that is being sexist. It's bullshit of course.

garage mahal said...

Palin ducking the press. It's in the Bible!

mcg said...

I'm gonna take a stab and guess garage mahal doesn't even understand what that verse means. Because frankly it's common sense.

mcg said...

Hmm. On the other hand, engaging in this very discussion might not be the best demonstration of that verse. Oh well.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'm gonna take a stab and guess garage mahal doesn't even understand what that verse means. Because frankly it's common sense

Well common sense isn't so common, particularly among our liberal friends.

garage mahal said...

Equating a allegorical passage from the Sermon on the Mount to Palin ducking reporters is quite a stretch. Dogs and swine in this context are those who are hostile to the gospel, and love for others not to be conditional against unbelievers. Matthew 7 is judging others - "Do not judge, or you too will be judged" is not a concept I hear much from Republicans. Remember, we're commie traitors and all...

nrn312 said...

She's wrapped up the witch-hunter vote.

The Witch Fighter Anoints Palin

Muthee’s mounting stardom took him to Wasilla Assembly of God in May, 2005, where he prayed over Palin and called upon Jesus to propel her into the governor’s mansion — and beyond. Muthee also implored Jesus to protect Palin from “the spirit of witchcraft.”

mcg said...

Sigh. Nice try, GM! You actually sounded pretty good there 'til that "judge not" cliche. Nevermind the fact that that entire section of the sermon is about judging properly, not about not judging.

Concerned Citizen said...

nrn--

'Tis almost Hallow's Eve.

We all respond in the deepest way to these ancient narratives, and people want to see them fulfilled again and again.

Who is Jesus but the hero who undergoes the severest trials in the desert and of the whip, passes to the forbidden underworld of Death, defies it, and returns as an unconquerable transformative force, nothing less than a symbol of springtime itself?

nrn312 said...

We all respond in the deepest way to these ancient narratives, and people want to see them fulfilled again and again.

O RLY?

garage mahal said...

mcg
I think we can agree Jesus called for unconditional love, not unconditional approval. More specifically judging motives, which only God can know.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that it is just fine that Gov. Palin is ducking reporters. So is Sen. Obama. But she has a good reason for it - their unabashed advocacy of her opponents, and the gotcha questioning that she gets, and they don't (and even without that, Sen. Biden is livening up the debate with his continuous gaffes).

dpent said...

I cannot speak for all white women, I can speak for 4, including myself, that was not going to to vote in 2008. We sat out the 2006 election as well, said we would and we did. Granted if we were going to vote, we would not have voted for Mr. Obama.

Sarah has changed us sitting home, wild horses would not be able to keep us away from the voting booth. I am betting there are a lot more women out there that feel the same way.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

She certainly helped with a whole lot of conservative folks of both genders and diverse racial and economic backgrounds who were unenthusiastic about McCain + [any generic white guy].

Of course this is just antedoctal, but the women that I have been speaking to are fired up about Palin. Many of them were not much interested in voting for McCain but with the addition of Palin they are actively participating in politics, sending in money and putting up signs. The small businesses and many ranches/farms in this area are financially managed by the woman/wife and they connect with Palin on a whole lot of levels.

I have also had some of my more moderate Democrat and Libertarian type clients express that they are switching from Obama to McCain precisely because of Palin. We have a lot of Libertarian voters here, Ross Perot carried the area twice. They view Palin as a kindred spirit, outside of the mainstream insider Washington politics. They think she is someone who will shake things up and stick a thumb in the eye of the good old boy's network. They LIKE the fact that she isn't the same and don't give a rip about her "foreign policy experience". People are smart enough to realize that the VP isn't involved in foreign policy and if she were to suddenly become President, that she would rely on experienced advisors just like every other President has done.

They view Obama as being part of the machine. Don't underestimate the appeal of the outsider to the voters.

AlphaLiberal said...

Muthee also implored Jesus to protect Palin from “the spirit of witchcraft.”

Damn! There goes the campaign plan! (joke)

Palin comes from one weird church. That should get every bit as much scrutiny as Obama's church has.
----------------
"John" fails basic reading comprehension.

When the hell did CNN's Campbell Brown join the McCain campaign? The quote is hers, you idiot.

Read the article correctly, then stop lying.


Read the article, yourself. Her argument is that the McCain campaign is behaving in a sexist way by shielding Palin from the press.

Someone remarked that the McCain press tactics are the type of thing you find in North Korea or Syria.

Concerned Citizen said...

Alpha--

Show me a church that's not weird, and I'll show you a Starbucks.

AlphaLiberal said...

new poll: "Forty-nine percent say that Palin is unqualified to be president if the need arises, compared with 40 percent who say she's qualified."

Ha-ha! More Palin! Please!

And, I forgot that John McCain was the only one of the Keating Five who had a direct financial relationship with Charles Keating. And that the Savings and Loan scandal cost $500 B.

AlphaLiberal said...

Concerned citizen, I have no trouble finding a Starbucks, thanks.

Her church is bizarre. they seem to hate American culture. I've never heard that in a Lutheran Church.

Concerned Citizen said...

I watched the video you linked to. It was produced by Jed Lewison, a former senior staffer to Washington state's Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell.

He failed to mention that McCain was cleared of charges that he acted improperly.

Then again, Sen. Obama received $105,849 from Fannie and Freddie between 1989 and 2008, making him the third largest recipient of their campaign contributions. And of the top 10 receipients in Congress, seven were Democrats. (Dodd, Kerry, and Clinton ranked 1,2, and 4).

Open Secrets is a non-partisan, non-profit organization.

Michael said...

Today's Washington Post-ABC News poll has good news for Barack Obama, who now has a clear lead and an edge on many issues:

Two weeks ago, McCain held a substantial advantage among white voters, including new found strength with white women.

In the face of bad economic news, the two candidates now run about evenly among white women, and Obama has narrowed the overall gap among white voters to five percentage points.

He also has a double-digit advantage on handling the current problems on Wall Street, and as a result, there has been a rise in his overall support.

Among likely voters:

Obama = 52 percent

McCain = 43 percent.

Two weeks ago, in the days immediately following the Republican National Convention, the race was essentially even, with McCain at 49 percent and Obama at 47 percent.

Michael said...

Bunny says: "...the women that I have been speaking to are fired up about Palin."

Sewing Bee?

Bingo parlor?

Local pub?

AA meeting?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Two weeks ago, in the days immediately following the Republican National Convention, the race was essentially even, with McCain at 49 percent and Obama at 47 percent.

Which says a lot about polls doesn't it.

Remember, the only one that matters is the one on November 4. Everything else is a blip.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Sewing Bee?

Bingo parlor?

Local pub?

AA meeting?


This is why you're called a troll Lucky.

mcg said...

Michael, you really like to be slow, don't you. Don't you know that even Obama doesn't believe that poll?

Michael said...

Bunny says: "I have also had some of my more moderate Democrat and Libertarian type clients express that they are switching from Obama to McCain precisely because of Palin."

You're saying the "moderates" are switching to McCain because he now has a woman on the ticket who is against abortion even in the case of incest or rape?

Who is anti-environment?

Who is even more conservative than McCain himself??

Who is considered unqualified by even many Republicans?

I find that very hard to believe.

Jim said...

Alpha -

After beclowning yourself with all your ridiculous rumor-mongering about Sarah Palin which all proved to be false, I'm surprised you're back for yet another round. Then again, until the paychecks from Axelrod stop I suppose you'll keep popping up here assuming that people don't remember that pretty much all you know how to do is cut-and-paste from dKos.

If you really want to give McCain a good excuse to run ads with "God Damn America" along with quotes from Obama, in his own words from his books, citing his extensive ties to Rev. Wright over the past 20 years; then knock yourself out with the attempted smears against her church.

All your attempts are guest pastors to attack her religious beliefs rely on three-degrees of separation association to Palin. On the other hand, Obama named Rev. Wright his spiritual adviser and admits that he used tapes of the sermons he supposedly never heard to practice his oratory skills. He's at the top of the ticket; she's at the bottom. There's no way this comparison comes out favorably for Obama.

You really are useless: if Axelrod saw your work, I'm sure he'd ask for his money back.

Michael said...

mcg, Candidates always downplay polling, but if you actually think they don't follow them every second of the day, you're dreaming. They also know they change from day to day, depending on what one or the other says or doesn't say.

Obama knows he should be as cautious as he can so he does not appear to be overconfident because of polling.

*Of course, you already know that and are just upset by the new numbers...and please, don't try to make it sound like McCain is having a good week.

The man has had more missteps in one week than Obama in two years...and again, I ask: WHERE IS SARAH PALIN and why won't they let the woman speak to he press?

This will prove to be one of the biggest blunders of McCain's campaign...hiding the V.P. candidate (except for scripted speeches with Republican supporters of course) from the American public.

Campbell Brown says it all:

"Tonight I call on the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment," said Brown. "This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong. She is tough. She is confident.

And you claim she is ready to be one heart beat away form the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff. Allow her to face down those pesky reporters... Let her have a real news conference with real questions. By treating Sarah Palin different from the other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves.

Free Sarah Palin. Free her from the chauvinistic chain you are binding her with. Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. So let her act like one."

AlphaLiberal said...

mcg says this"

Poor Campbell Brown. To borrow a condescending quote from Barack Obama, "Some people haven't bean reading their Bibles." And yes, the Bible addresses the very issue of Palin keeping the MSM at arm's length.

Wow. What a twisted reading of scripture! So now The Bible exists to provide cover for candidates to dodge tough questions.

Who knew Jesus was preaching spin?

Look, no politicians or their supporters think the press is fair to them. But most pol's have the stones to face the questions. Sarah Palin and John McCain are so arrogant they think they are above answering to the news media.

Ain't. gonna. work.

Jim said...

michael -

You're also the person who said that NO ONE had the foresight to see the current credit meltdown. Is that kind of like Obama claiming that the surge succeeded beyond ANYONE's expectations.

What you mean is your cocoon of Leftist beliefs is wrapped so tightly that you don't believe it yourself. McCain tried to introduce legislation to prevent this meltdown: Democrats shot it down. McCain supported the surge: Obama still doesn't. My own knowledge of the financial markets protected my investments while you hysterically claimed that no one could have seen it coming. You're worse than the weatherman who claims it's going to be sunny today while failing to look out the window to see the rain falling.

Given what we know about how limited your knowledge is compared to what other people knew/know, what makes you think your analysis is worth the time you took to type it?

Hoosier Daddy said...

You're saying the "moderates" are switching to McCain because he now has a woman on the ticket who is against abortion even in the case of incest or rape?

As opposed to a candidate who has no problem letting a baby die because the doctor botched the job? Yeah I could see a moderate doing that.

Bob said...

Having Campbell call on McCain to "free Sarah" is sweet. I mean we all know he locked her up in the tower. Never to be seen. Oops, that's right - she's out on the stump. She's talking to voters but basically only to voters. Okay, there have been a few interviews. But, really, she's locked up in the tower. That grumpy old McCain.

What will be even more funny is when McCain lets Sarah down so she talks to the local press. But ONLY the local press. Watch Campbell's head spin then! Because she's all for Sarah - wink, wink!

Hoosier Daddy said...

Biden said Lincoln's Gettysburg Speech would have been longer but Lincoln's teleprompter broke.

Those watching the speech on TV were treated to a commerical break brought to them by Dr. Zucker's Miracle Elixir.

mcg said...

mcg, Candidates always downplay polling, but if you actually think they don't follow them every second of the day, you're dreaming. They also know they change from day to day, depending on what one or the other says or doesn't say.

Michael: of course McCain's had a bad week. But it is neither campaign's interest to believe inaccurate polling. To the degree to which your strategy is determined by said polling, you really can get yourself into trouble. Like the Obama campaign said, an 11-point swing just doesn't ring true, particularly when examined against other polls.

Jim said...

alpha -

Given the fact that the NYT is once again printing what they know are absolute lies about the McCain campaign, what gives them - or any other media outlet the standing to claim that they have the capacity or willingness to perform a fair interview? They don't, and your repeated claims that she should subject herself to their partisan ambushes are disingenuous. You want the "gotcha," and you're stamping your feet like a two-year old because she won't give you what you want.

Do you need a tissue or just a timeout?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Sewing Bee?

Bingo parlor?

Local pub?

AA meeting?


Chamber of Commerce, Rotary and in my busines of financial planning and investments. (Series 7, 6, 63, 65, variable life and health insurance licenses and CFP)

You're saying the "moderates" are switching to McCain because he now has a woman on the ticket who is against abortion even in the case of incest or rape?

Who is anti-environment?

Who is even more conservative than McCain himself??

Who is considered unqualified by even many Republicans?

I find that very hard to believe


I'm sure that there are very many things you find hard to believe. Moderates are not so concerned with the things you list. Seriously. Those issues are so far down on the list of importance for normal people. You might actually consider talking to somebody oustide of your basement or the echo chamber you live in. Moderates are, mostly, not going to vote for Obama who is in essence a socialist and so far left that he can see his own backside.

The evironmental issues are a loser, especially in this area. Global warming. ha ha ha.
Abortion, another non issue in a Presidential campaign. It isn't as if Palin or McCain are going to be able to change the laws without going through the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade and fat chance of that anyway. The biggest change would be the ability to appoint future justices who might consider that move. But, people are not concerned with that right now.

Moderates, that I am talking to, are concerned with the economy, taxes, security of our country and borders. Most people just want to be left alone and could care less about those democrat liberal issues. Moderates are switching because Palin is a breath of fresh air and not another one of those tired insider professional political hacks that we are continually forced to choose between.

AlphaLiberal said...

Sara Palin, woefully unprepared:

McCain then looked around the room and gestured as if to welcome questions. The AP reporter shouted a question at Gov. Palin ("Governor, what have you learned from your meetings?") but McCain aide Brooke Buchanan intervened and shepherded everybody out of the room.

Palin looked surprised, leaned over to McCain and asked him a question, to which your pooler thinks he shook his head as if to say "No."


From The Politico:
Let Sarah Palin speak!

Michael said...

Jim said..."You're also the person who said that NO ONE had the foresight to see the current credit meltdown."

Sorry, Jim...it was John McCain you're quoting, not me.

Keene (NH) Sentinel, discussing the subprime mortgage crisis, in December 2007:

"So, I’d like to tell you that I did anticipate it, but I have to give you straight talk, I did not.”

mcg said...

Wow. What a twisted reading of scripture! So now The Bible exists to provide cover for candidates to dodge tough questions. Who knew Jesus was preaching spin?

Oh, it really is fun tweaking you guys. Come on. Of course Jesus wasn't talking about political machinations here. It is a piece of wisdom that transcends the particular situation and the person who said it. I'm not surprised that you guys are getting so hung up ridiculing what I said, indeed, I was looking forward to seeing it.

The concept of "casting pearls before swine" (or, more precisely, not doing so) has more general application in life, and you don't have to believe in the divinity or even the moral wisdom of Jesus to know that.

Michael said...

Bunny, you actually believe Sarah Palin was brought in to garner more votes from..."moderates??"

C'mon, you know that's patently ridiculous.

And to say global warming, abortion and the environment are non-issues in this election tells me you need to read more.

mcg said...

"So, I’d like to tell you that I did anticipate it, but I have to give you straight talk, I did not.”

The words of an honest man. But it neither contradicts what he said in 2006, nor does it completely eliminate its prescience: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."

That is in hindsight clearly true, and the fact that he did not comprehend the sheer magnitude of that truth doesn't change it.

Michael said...

mcg: Since you're so concerned with the Bible and such, here's an interesting tidbit about Sarah Palin and her beliefs, along with a link to the video. (And show it to Bunny and her "moderate" friends)

Wasilla, Alaska

On September 20 and 21, I attended services at the church Sarah Palin belonged to since she was an adolescent, the Wasilla Assembly of God. Though Palin officially left the church in 2002, she is listed on its website as "a friend," and spoke there as recently as June 8 of this year.

I went specifically to see a pastor visiting from Kiambu, Kenya named Thomas Muthee. Muthee gained fame within Pentecostal circles by claiming that he defeated a local witch, Mama Jane, in a great spiritual battle, thus liberating his town from sin and opening its people to the spirit of Jesus.

Muthee's mounting stardom took him to Wasilla Assembly of God in May, 2005, where he prayed over Palin and called upon Jesus to propel her into the governor's mansion -- and beyond.

Muthee also implored Jesus to protect Palin from "the spirit of witchcraft." The video archive of that startling sermon was scrubbed from Wasilla Assembly of God's website, but now it has reappeared.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/the-witch-hunter-anoints_b_128805.html

Michael said...

mcg, evidently McCain believes the latest polling because he just announced he wants to postpone the debate on Friday.

AlphaLiberal said...

Jim makes no sense:

Given the fact that the NYT is once again printing what they know are absolute lies about the McCain campaign, ......

Waah, waah, waah.

You don't muster a single fact to make this case. What are you talking about? this is just more unspecific generalized victimhood from the Republicans.

Man up. Explain what this great outrage is that Palin must be shielded from reporters.

Here's an example of the pathetic excuses used of McCain/Palin victimhood.

AlphaLiberal said...

mcg, yeah whatever. I think you just can't come up with a better answer.

Michael said...

Jim, The NYT's article relates to Davis (McCain's campaign manager) being paid right up until August...by Fannie Mae...even as McCain railed against them.

What is it that strikes you as being untruthful?

erniecu73 said...

Michael said...
mcg, evidently McCain believes the latest polling because he just announced he wants to postpone the debate on Friday.

1:55 PM

Dust Bunny Queen said...

And to say global warming, abortion and the environment are non-issues in this election tells me you need to read more.

Maybe it's a regional thing then.

This also explains why liberals are "shocked shocked shocked" when they lose elections. How could people vote against their own interests?? Interests which are evidently supposed to be those interests forced on us by urban liberal elites. Surprise. We dont' care.

mcg said...

mcg, yeah whatever. I think you just can't come up with a better answer.

Well, heck, why should I try? You already said you were voting Republican so I don't need to convince you.

Donn said...

From NRO to Michael:

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae didn't have to buy access to John McCain because they had already bought your guy.

mcg said...

Since you're so concerned with the Bible and such, here's an interesting tidbit about Sarah Palin and her beliefs, along with a link to the video.

I'd be happy to. I've been to a few of these weird religious ceremonies before. They can be eye-opening to say the least. But they're also not going to be particularly scary to your average believer, or for that matter your average non-believing moderate.

Revenant said...

The survey asked for preference. The relevant question isn't "who do you prefer", but "who are you voting for". I've preferred McCain to Obama for months. The open question has been whether I liked him enough to bother dragging my ass to the voting booth on election day.

I'm open to the idea that Palin didn't help McCain with women in particular, but she definitely pushed a lot of apathetic McCain supporters into actual enthusiasm. I think he picked up a lot of actual votes from white women (and white men, and Americans in general) with that choice, even if preferences didn't change.

Arturius said...

And to say global warming, abortion and the environment are non-issues in this election tells me you need to read more.

With a financial meltdown looming, those three topics more than likely rank pretty low on the mind of the average voter.

In other words, few people are looking at their 401K or other retirement fund portfolios and wondering if the polar bears are going to make it.

AlphaLiberal said...

Now, Barack Obama has been regularly attacked by FoxNews and had his words routinely distorted.

But he keeps going back and talking to them!

But John McCain and Sarah Palin are throwing a hissy fit and saying they can't handle the press.

Wimps.

mcg said...

mcg, evidently McCain believes the latest polling because he just announced he wants to postpone the debate on Friday.

Uh, yeah, that's it. He's behind in the polls, so to fix it, he's ducking a debate. Wow, that will work.

Michael said...

McCain wants to hold on on campaigning and of course, the debate...so he ca return to Washington...to make sure everything is under control.
(As if having the debate would somehow interfere with the discussion , debate and resolution of the issues at hand.)

Can we assume he just heard about
the economic crisis? That the rest of the House and Senate can't get things worked out...without him?
And what happened to that "inside the beltway" silliness we hear from Palin?

This is nothing but a stall because he's plummeting in the polls and feels the heat.

Period.

Michael said...

mcg says: "Uh, yeah, that's it. He's behind in the polls, so to fix it, he's ducking a debate. Wow, that will work."

If he thinks he's going get beat around in the debate...yeah, that's exactly why he would duck out.

Michael said...

Obama called McCain this morning and asked him to join for a coordinated statement about the economic situation. McCain called him back later and evidently agreed...than announced he was suspending his campaign and the debate.

mcg said...

OK, Michael, campaign genius that you are. Let's say McCain believes these polls 100%, which means he has to make up considerable ground between now and November.

I think you can safely say that the McCain camp is not going to take advice from you. So just hypothetically, what should McCain do to make up that difference? I would expect you to say things like he should highlight the fact that Obama's black, spread more rumors that he's Muslim, play up the Ayers connection more, put out a bunch of BAIPA commercials, hammer harder on Obama's Freddie Mac connections, etc. etc.

What I wouldn't expect you to suggest is that he suspend his campaign and skip a debate. I wouldn't have expected you to think that was a productive campaign strategy.

Now, it would be one thing if he didn't believe the polls, and instead believed that he was ahead in the polls. Candidates that don't fear losing don't debate. Nancy Pelosi, for instance, hasn't had to debate an election opponent in decades. But you've said that the reason he's proposing to postpone the debate is because he believes he's behind.

Jim said...

michael and alpha -

NYT is claiming that Rick Davis was paid for lobbying when he wasn't. He doesn't have an equity stake in the firm. He hasn't even been a registered lobbyist since 2005. The NYT knew this: they ran the story anyway. That's called lying. I know you two haven't the foggiest relationship with the truth, but you should really stick to lying about things that aren't so easily refuted.

Like I said, LIES. And you are lying liars repeating them. Any other questions or do I need to prove once again how fundamentally dishonest you both are?

specifically to michael -

I'm quoting you from the previous thread in which you waxed hysterical about people losing their 401(k)'s in which you demonstrated that: (a) you don't even know how 401(k) plans work, (b) that you have no clue how financial markets work, and (c) that you're willing to lie to cover your ignorance.

With regard to the quote - it is from December 2007, you moron. McCain was referring to the subprime markets NOT the current credit crisis in which the dominos are falling because of the fundamental failure of Fannie/Freddie which McCain attempted to reform. Once again, you dishonest hack, you're trying to misdirect, take quotes out of context, and just plain lie to score cheap points.

Do you still want to continue displaying your ignorance or are you done with your hackery yet?

Michael said...

Arturius: I never said the economic situation wasn't much more important, I merely said the other issues were also important.

Believe it or not, most Americans think of more than one issue at a time.

If you don't care about the environment, global warming or abortion issues...that's your prerogative.

erniecu73 said...

Michael said...
[...]

2:19 PM

Jim said...

alpha -

Aww...things still not going your way? Palin and McCain won't run their campaign according to your rules? News for you: you and your Leftist friends in the national press are the only ones who care.

At last check 71% of the country believes that the press is playing politics with their coverage. Do you really think stomping your feet and throwing a hissy fit is going to matter to anyone besides your friends on dKos?

Maybe you can do an online MeetUp and throw your temper tantrum together...

Michael said...

Jim, you can't be this dense.

If Davis wasn't being paid as a lobbyist or for some sort of quid pro quo...what the hell do you think they were paying him to do?
Do you think they just like the guy?

And, let's get real...the point is not just whether he was technically a registered "lobbyist," it's that McCain has been railing against Fannie Mae, blaming them for many of the economic woes we face.

Now be honest: Are you saying it's no big deal...that the campaign manager for John McCain...while McCain says what he does about how horrible Fannie Mae is...is, at the same time collecting a check for $15,000 a month from Fannie Mae??

C'mon, Jim...tell me the truth.

Michael said...

erniecu73: Shouldn't you be in a bathroom stall somewhere, reading something in another language?

Try this one out:

"Pienso que usted lo toma en el asno y que tiene gusto de él."

mcg said...

Well, knock me over with a feather.

CNN: Biden, Obama helped keep 'Bridge to Nowhere' alive

I'm amazed this is being printed at all. But it is and I should give credit where it's due. But what the heck is it doing coming out on September 23? Everything in that article was known weeks ago. (Well, months ago, but it didn't matter much until Palin was picked.)

Jim said...

michael -

Listen up closely, so you can understand this before your mother calls you upstairs to eat the lunch she fixed for you:

That money was paid to Davis' old firm. Not to Davis. Get that? Davis didn't get any money.

A firm that Davis used to be associated with did work for Fannie after he left and had no more financial interest in. It's a LIE. You're a liar for repeating it. Is truth really that alien a concept to you?

C'mon, be honest michael. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Now go change your underwear - a week is long enough, don't you think? Sitting in your soiled diapers has evidently addled your brain. Now, hurry up and go, your mother is calling...

Michael said...

Jim, I haven't a clue about what thread or statements you say I made.

And, as to your claim that I know nothing about 401K's or economics, I also have no idea what you base that on.

And, if you actually think this crisis can't have dramatic effects on 401K's, pension funds, stocks, mutual funds, etc...you ARE that dense.

But you don't really believe that...do you?

mcg said...

Hey Michael: when did you stop abusing little boys? And if you say you've never abused little boys, then what were you doing abusing them?

Michael said...

Jim, if it's a "lie" will Davis be suing the NYT's soon?

If it's a "lie" he has plenty of ammunition for one hell of a lawsuit.

Let me know when he files.

Pogo said...

I simply do not trust the MSM to tell the truth at all. If the NY Times prints it, I assume some or all of the story is fiction, bullshit, or propaganda.

I feel the same way about polls.

I do not doubt that some people are swayed by them. But I think they are likely as mendacious as their TV/print media bretheren.

So Pravda tells me Obama is winning?
No shit. Pravda always says Obama is winning.
When Pravda tells me Obama has won, unless it is by a massive margin, I will not believe it.

So in a few decades, the press has become completely untrustworthy. And there is no earthly reason to read or watch, except to be reminded of the party platform year on end. Thus we turn citizens into subjects, and the great experiment is no more.

Michael said...

Jim, Which part of this is a lie?

One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager from the end of 2005 through last month, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The disclosure contradicts a statement Sunday night by Mr. McCain that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had no involvement with the company for the last several years.

Mr. Davis’s firm received the payments from the company, Freddie Mac, until it was taken over by the government this month along with Fannie Mae.

They said Mr. Davis’s firm, Davis & Manafort, had been kept on the payroll because of Mr. Davis’s close ties to Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who by 2006 was widely expected to run again for the White House.

Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis & Manafortfor the presidential campaign, but as a partner and equity-holder continues to benefit from its income.

No one at Davis & Manafort other than Mr. Davis was involved in efforts on Freddie Mac’s behalf, the people familiar with the arrangement said.

Davis appears to have been paid all this money for nothing other than his access to John McCain.

mcg said...

Wow, that's a powerful counterargument, Michael! Let me try it.

When is the Obama campaign going to sue John McCain's campaign for claiming Obama supported comprehensive sex education for kindergartners?

When is the Obama campaign going to sue Gianna Jensen's 527 for claiming Obama worked against a law to prevent infanticide?

When is the Obama campaign going to sue Stanley Kurtz for exposing Obama's attempts to cover up his relationship with BIll Ayers?

Jim said...

michael -

Put down the bong. It's affecting your memory. Or are you just lying about that too?

Claiming that you didn't say what you said doesn't change the fact that you said it, and it doesn't mean that your feet aren't going to be held to the fire when you display such blatant ignorance over and over again? Did you really think that no one would remember what you said? Who are you? Obama? What's your next excuse: "This is not the michael I used to know...."?

Your posts are really starting to reek of what you've been sitting in...Now get changed and go get your lunch, your mother is still waiting....

erniecu73 said...

What about a donkey, michael? I don't drink with donkeys! Nor can I have a donkey at home. My HOA explicitly prohibits the possesion of donkeys in the building.

AlphaLiberal said...

Found it!! Here's the McCain campaign spokesman explaining in all the detail they can muster why they should not talk to the press.

Michael said...

Pogo said..."I simply do not trust the MSM to tell the truth at all."

I've asked this before, but could you please tell everybody which part of the MSM to whom you refer?

*Each and every one of the following would be considered part of the MSM...

Fox News
Washington Times
NRO
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Laura Ingraham
Michael Savage
Glen Beck
WSJ
Matt Drudge

Or, is it just ABC, NBC, CNN, the NYT's, Washington Post, etc. that you..."simply do not trust?"

Michael said...

erniecu73: There was nothing in my statement about a donkey, numbnut.

I thought you said you could "read" other languages?

I think you're full of shit.

"También pienso que usted aspira el dick."

Jim said...

michael -

The first statement is a lie. Continuing to repeat it doesn't make it any less a lie. Let's try this:


Michael lives in his mother's basement where he watches movies of little boys while touching himself. His problem has gotten so bad that he is unable to remove himself from the computer long enough even to change his underwear on more than a weekly basis according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

See how easy it is? I've got two anonymously sourced people who say you're a dirty, nasty pedophile who sits in his own feces in his mother's basement.

That's makes it absolutely true no matter what you say and regardless of whether or not the facts prove otherwise, right?

Michael said...

McCain has to IMMEDIATELY get back to Washington. (You know, "inside that beltway Sarah hates.)

They've been working on this for days on end.

Did he just hear about it?

mcg said...

Michael---in all seriousness, I don't see how you can consider Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck, Savage to be MSM. I certainly don't consider Colmes, Maddow, Olbermann, Rhodes, et al to be MSM, either.

I know you're probably not interested in a serious argument, but if you are, it might be worthwhile to at least agree on what the term "MSM" means for the sake of discussion. So I hope you take Pogo's answer seriously when he gives it.

Michael said...

Jim, you saying I posted something (that you can't find or provide any evidence of) doesn't mean a damn thing.

You're the fool who evidently thinks 401K's and pension funds are out of bounds.

You need an education.

erniecu73 said...

Michael said...
erniecu73: There was nothing in my statement about a donkey, numbnut.

I thought you said you could "read" other languages?

I think you're full of shit.

"También pienso que usted aspira el dick."

2:47 PM


Whom do I aspire to be??

And you said:

Michael said...
erniecu73: Shouldn't you be in a bathroom stall somewhere, reading something in another language?

Try this one out:

"Pienso que usted lo toma en el asno y que tiene gusto de él."

2:31 PM


According to the Diccionario General de la Lengua Española, last edition,

asno is a donkey, un burro.

Michael said...

mcg, You and other wingnuts here always come back with exactly the same refrain: Oh, Rush and the others really aren't part of the MSM.

Rush draws about 40 million listeners and Fox holds the high hand in ratings. Beck has an opinion page on CNN.com and a show on cable. Laura Ingraham has millions of listeners.

The Washington Times is a major news organization. The WSJ is an even bigger news organization.

So, tell me exactly who fits into this MSM formula you have.

Michael said...

erniecu73: Try another translation, dipstick.

It also means; "ASS."

Figure it out.

mcg said...

I wonder if McCain is going to sue Obama for claiming that McCain has blocked stem cell research?

erniecu73 said...

And exactly how is that supposed to offend me, michael? Or how is that a bad thing in any case?

Donn said...

Michael,

Try here, this might help.....

Michael said...

mcg, You don't know much about libel suits do you?

There's nothing in your posting that would fit the bill, but if the NYT's says Davis was being paid and he says it isn't true...he can sue. (And I assume you understand that being "paid" can take the form of payment to an entity you own or have interest in.)

But we both know he was being paid, don't we?

Jim said...

michael -

You wrote it. You know you wrote it. I'm not playing this childish back and forth with you any longer. You're the coward who won't own up to what he said.

I'm not wasting my time going back to find the exact thread to cut and paste it because, quite frankly, if you think you have any credibility left to be destroyed then you really have been sitting in your own feces too long...

mcg said...

So, tell me exactly who fits into this MSM formula you have.

Like I said, you're not interested in a serious argument. But what I'm trying to do here is differentiate between obvious, partisan opinion-peddlers and supposedly objective journalists. I think when most of us talk about the MSM we're referring to the news outlets of major media organizations.

And even then, we're differentiating between news and opinion. What the NYT publishes on its editorial pages or clearly labeled analysis pieces, for instance, isn't the issue; it is how those same editors and their journalists shape the so-called objective news that matters: in what is written within an objective news piece, the importance given to individual stories and their placement in the paper, the decision to cover or not to cover particular news stories, etc.

This kind of distinction can yield some interesting results. For instance, most people correctly identify the WSJ editorial board as conservative. And yet, I seem to remember an analysis that suggested that its news pages tilted more to the left. I don't want to put too much stock in that story but I share it anyway to help illustrate the distinction being made.

mcg said...

There's nothing in your posting that would fit the bill, but if the NYT's says Davis was being paid and he says it isn't true...he can sue.

That's nice, but Obama campaign has called some of those charges "dishonorable lies." I'm glad you concede that there's nothing there that fits the bill, but the Obama campaign hasn't.

Michael said...

Donn, Once again: Davis being paid by Freddie or Fannie is NOT the point of conjecture. (I read the same article you reference on NRO, but it's not relevant to the case at hand.)

It's that McCain and Davis have repeatedly denied he was receiving payment...while badmouthing and blaming them for the economic crisis.

As for "donations," I would bet McCain has gotten donations from both at one time or another, too...and I'll also bet it isn't the least bit illegal or immoral.

It's LYING that creates the problems for McCain and Davis.

Michael said...

mcg, Why not pick up a dictionary and look up libel.

There are all kinds of things you can say about "public figures" that cannot be said about private citizens.

If Davis really believes he was libeled by the NYT's...he can sue.

Let me know when the trial begins.

mcg said...

Of course, but I am under the assumption that Davis is not a private citizen, at least in this context.

Michael said...

mcg, let's make it easy for you:

Libel: A written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression.

The key terms being; "defamatory" and "unjustly."

If Davis can prove he is not being paid (even through his firm as a conduit) I would think he can them into the ground. (Ann would certainly know)

Think it'll ever happen?

Michael said...

mcg, I doubt if Davis would fit the bill as a "public figure" in the context of this article. And they're not criticizing him personally, just for being rather hypocritical.

mcg said...

I think he would, actually, because of his ties to the McCain campaign. But regardless you and I both know that libel laws in the United States are not not particularly friendly to plaintiffs. I do not think a libel suit against the NYT in this case would be successful, even if specific lies were identified. Were this Britain I think he might have a higher likelihood of success. But that is really my point: it was pretty stupid of you to say "if it's a lie, why doesn't Davis sue" when there are a whole host of reasons why he wouldn't.

mcg said...

If I recall, the McCain campaign did threaten legal action surrounding the Trig fake pregnancy scandal. Is that right? Can't remember for sure.

Michael said...

OhOH...

Palin gets question, looks to McCain, demurs

This is what happens when campaigns let reporters into photo ops. They get all uppity and ask questions.

From the pool report account of what happened after McCain and Palin's meeting with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvilli and Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko:

McCain then looked around the room and gestured as if to welcome questions. The AP reporter shouted a question at Gov. Palin (“Governor, what have you learned from your meetings?”) but McCain aide Brooke Buchanan intervened and shepherded everybody out of the room.

Palin looked surprised, leaned over to McCain and asked him a question, to which your pooler thinks he shook his head as if to say “No.”

Michael said...

mcg, I think most potential libel suits stay that way for good reason.

It's a tough road to hoe.

mcg said...

I certainly prefer our libel laws to Britain's.

Michael said...

It's evidently much easier to prove in GB.

Jim said...

mcg -

Michael isn't interested in discussion. Nor is he open to admitting that he is lying or wrong - even when he is demonstrably proven to be so.

You're wasting your breath, but I guess so was his mother when she tried to pry him away from his pedophilic masturbatory practices to come get some lunch.*

* I have two anonymous sources with knowledge of the arrangement that says its true. If Michael has proof otherwise, he can sue me for libel. I'll wait for the lawsuit. If it isn't filed then we know what the real truth is, don't we?

mcg said...

Well, honestly, I'm content to end this discussion on a point of agreement (however tangential). I've got work to get back to.

blake said...

Hey, Concerned,

Can I borrow this for a blogpost?

The hero starts as a callow, even craven, youth. He is called to action. Enters a sort of supernatural world and is given special tools. He endures trials and is swallowed into the belly of the beast. He is reborn spiritually. Interestingly, he often meets a goddess/queenlike/mother-type figure. This union provides totality, a greater level of psychological health, creating even higher spiritual rebirth. Finally, he returns to the ordinary world to provide benefits to the common folk.

Seeking to be like his father and grandfather, who were both sea kings, the prankster prince loses his magic flying ship. He is tortured by demons. Broken physically and mentally, he finds strength in humility. Now an elder white-haired king of a desert world, he unites with not one but two women: the fertile queen who rules a distant fog-shrouded land of fantastic natural wealth and a crone who provides magic beverages of refreshment.

Who is the other? A wanderer who resorts to the tools of drugs to heighten his consciousness, who shuns martial valor, whose fathers abandoned him, whose mother sent him away, who falls under the spell of the wizards and their machine, who is spellbound by the soothsayer who damns the land, who lurks with a shadow-dwelling imp who destroys monuments and lures children pied-piper like to their doom, who weds a domineering woman, and who defeats the unsexed queen and her gelded deposed mate, the disgraced king.


?

AlphaLiberal said...

Jim:

You're asking us to take you at your word that Davis is not an equity partner in the firm that bears his name?

Really. Do you have anything to back that up?

And don't ask us to just believe Davis.

And the debate at this point is when he stopped lobbying for Fannie Mae.

AlphaLiberal said...

Jim is confused on the story:

Let's unpack it for him:
NYT is claiming that Rick Davis was paid for lobbying when he wasn't.

Jim has it wrong. From the NYT story:
One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

Jim says:
He doesn't have an equity stake in the firm.
This is apparently false. Even the McCain campaign is not saying this. From Goldfarb's post:

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

He hasn't even been a registered lobbyist since 2005.

The NYT article does not address this. They say he was paid to speak to Fannia Mae execs, that he worked as a consultant.

Jim:
That's called lying.

Jim, you've got it all wrong here. You've erected strawman arguments countering points the NYT story did not make. You have disproven NOTHING.

Rick Davis' firm has profited from Rick Davis' association to John McCain.

AlphaLiberal said...

BTW, here's the title of the NYT article:
McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac

It does not say Davis directly received the money. It does say they paid it because of Davis' relationship to McCain.

I'll be more careful of my description going forward. And, Jim, you have some retracting to do.