« Playing Devil's Advocate On The Astroturfing Story | Main | Guns and condoms »

McCain Campaign Manager Steve Schmidt on the New York Times

No ambiguity here. Steve Schmidt of the McCain campaign tells it like it is about the New York Times. The recording is from a conference call with the media from earlier today. In it Schmidt asks that we "be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race that whatever the NYT once was, it is not today a journalistic organization." There is no "level of public vetting" of Obama's record and no outrage over Obama's deceitful ads. This organization is "150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate." Listen to it all.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/31795.

Comments (31)

Well of course the MSM is i... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Well of course the MSM is in the tank with Uh-bama.

You'd be a moron not to see that.

But no denial that he recei... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

But no denial that he received $2 million to lobby for less deregulation of Fannie and Freddie.

I mean "less regulation"</p... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

I mean "less regulation"

Lying lib liars are always ... (Below threshold)
GianiD:

Lying lib liars are always lying.

Wonder if the NYT will report the link between the hacker, and the campaign manager of the candidate who thinks ther are 57 states?

GianiD: I don't think they'... (Below threshold)

GianiD: I don't think they've even reported the hacking locally, yet, and don't really expect them to. I guess it's "not newsworthy" (no matter what the Secret Service says about it).

"... and in other news. Th... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

"... and in other news. The sun rises in the east, and apparently the sky is blue. Back to you Bob."

Lorie, the real problem for... (Below threshold)

Lorie, the real problem for John McCain is that overall he is one of the MSM's favorite Republicans because of his war hero record which has earned their respect and any attempts to anger the press aren't really constructive for this relationship. McCain's Campaign needs to be careful about ruining this positive relationship and needs to stick to real issues instead.

McCain's best advantage has always been to play up his war hero history in any election he has run in. This even helped him retain his senate seat after falling into the very serious "Keating Five" scandal and the $161 billion Lincoln Savings & Loan collapse scandal back in 1989 when McCain accepted 9 jet vacation trips paid for by Keating and $113,000 in campaign donations and then approached banking regulators on the behalf of Keating. Despite being the senator most personally involved with Keating with the huge savings and loan collapse, McCain was the only senator to survive the scandal and remain in the senate. Even space hero John Glenn left the senate and did not seek re-election due to his role in the scandal. McCain's role as a war hero was enough to survive even this mess, so any McCain Campaign attempts to weaken his positive press relationship are counterproductive.

Naturally both Obama and Palin have received a lot of positive press in the media overall, but that is largely because both are relatively new figures to most voters and there is a lot of media interest in writing about new personalities. Part of Hillary Clinton's frustration was because she is so well known by the press, that she got so little new stories compared to the fresher Obama personality.

Naturally both Oba... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:
Naturally both Obama and Palin have received a lot of positive press in the media overall
-Hooson


Have you graduated to another business? Like selling hardcore hallucinogens?

Hooson, only you would say ... (Below threshold)

Hooson, only you would say something so completely ill-thought out as, "[McCain] is one of the MSM's favorite Republicans..." I take that back, you're the only one who would actually type out almost 300 words to say it.

There were times when the media (NYT included) liked McCain. Those times were whenever he did something to piss of Republicans. If he was pissing off the Dems, they didn't like him much.

As a matter of fact, they thought it safe to ignore him to a degree during most of the campaign season because they felt he didn't pose any real threat to their candidate. They were pleased as punch, because they knew a lot of Republicans would stay home and not vote.

But now that he's got the Republicans charged up and has given Obama some real competition they've given up all pretense of what little bit of objectivity they claimed to still possess.

Paul,The story is ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Paul,

The story is about the New York Times, not the generic MSM. While the generic MSM is generally biased in favor of Obama, Schmidt's claim is that the NYT is biased to the point that they are no longer a journalistic organization.

You can easily prove this piece wrong by linking to a recent (in the last month) commentary by the NYT staff that's positive of McCain or Palin.

How many front pa... (Below threshold)

How many front page stories has the NYT run on Obama's shady dealings and associates versus the root canals extended to McCain and Palin?

How many retractions for that Elisabeth Bumiller asrticle from a few months ago?

"McCain's Campaign needs to... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

"McCain's Campaign needs to be careful about ruining this positive relationship and needs to stick to real issues instead."

I couldn't disagree more. The New York Times and other "mainstream media" outlets have gone so far into the tank for Obama they really are, as Schmidt pointed out, not acting as journalistic enterprises, but rather as arms of the Obama campaign. I think it is great that McCain has stopped sucking up to the media as he has done for the past eight years, and decided to call them on their obscene bias. His "positive relationship" with the media consisted of those in the media rushing to report anything McCain said bad about Bush or Republicans and McCain gave them plenty to run with. As soon as McCain threatened the Democrats, the "positive relationship" ceased to exist.

There are stories that were easily debunked, such as the one about Palin cutting funding for special needs kids and pregnant teens, that the NYT ran and then didn't even bother to retract later when they were shown to be false. Those stories would not have run in the first place had there been even the least bit of fact checking, but then when they were not taken back when others who bothered to fact check showed them to be false, it was clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that the NYT was more concerned with electing their guy than they were with their reputation as a reliable news source.

There are dozens of similar examples over the past couple of months alone of extreme pro-Obama bias in the New York Times. McCain can suck up to them all he wants and tiptoe around them and hope not to upset them, but that has gotten him absolutely nothing.

When McCain dares to mention his war hero background the left goes berserk and accuses him of milking it. In a world with a fair press, McCain could talk about his position on the issues. But since the media will not question Obama's stance on the issues or his background it is up to McCain to do so. If John McCain had a Bill Ayers or a Tony Rezko in his past their names would already be household words. If Obama had warned of the coming Fannie Freddie problems three years ago, as McCain did, that is all the networks would have run non-stop for the past seven days. If McCain was the one who had Jim Johnson heading up his VP search everyone in this country would know about it by now.

I would love it if the media did their jobs and McCain could just talk about his position on the issues, but they haven't done it for the past two years of covering Obama and they certainly are not likely to start now. In the words of a famous leftwing nutjob blogger, "Screw'em." Every Republican who has won the presidency in my lifetime has done so in spite of the media doing everything in their ability to defeat him. We are used to rolling that way. If we had the media reporting on our guy the way they have Obama we'd be 20 points ahead by now.

I am frankly pretty shocked that Obama is not up by at least 20 yet. That just shows how little there is to him. With all the advantages -- the media working overtime for him, the economy emerging as the supreme issue, etc. he has not closed the deal. If we had lost in Iraq like he wanted maybe then he would have this thing put away. Too bad for Democrats that the surge worked. Sorry for the rant, but there is no reason I can see for McCain playing nice with the NYT.

Paul,I must respectf... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Paul,
I must respectfully disagree. I will agree that among Republican candidates during the primaries, John McCain was kind of the media darling. It has been my impression that when it appeared it was going to be a McCain vs. Obama presidential election the treatment of McCain has gotten progressively worse the longer he has been able to hang tight to Obama. In today's political climate - bad economy, drawn out conflict in Iraq, a very unpopular sitting Republican President - I think the MSM felt that by election day an Obama victory would be a forgone conclusion and in that situation they could safely continue their respect for McCain - you know, "John you made the best of a bad situation. You fought nobly but you just couldn't overcome Bush's unpopularity. We salute you for that..." or something along those lines. No loss for them and on the surface they come out smelling pretty good. But that has not happened and their increasing scrutiny of McCain and their sweeping aside of anything and everything uncomfortable about Obama has now become glaringly obvious. As far as Palin receiving a lot of positive press overall, man, I just don't see that. I think her selection caused them to reel a little bit because they expected maybe a Romney or Pawlenty pick and they already had their "look two establishment white guys on the Republican ticket again" copy already written with just blank spaces to fill in the name. Well, they had to tear up the copy but they soon got their bearings and any positive press they give Palin is given very grudgingly because they don't yet know how many people they can afford to offend yet still help assure a plurality to put Obama in the White House come January.

There is no question the li... (Below threshold)
highly intelligent:

There is no question the liberal media is in bed with Obama. If the NYtimes did it's job then we would have Obama's college transcripts. The NYtimes did NO stories on the fact that obama will not release his college transcripts. Keller of the NY Times is a liar when he says he looks into both candidates. Where is obama's college transcripts then?

"the real problem for John ... (Below threshold)
LCRW:

"the real problem for John McCain is that overall he is one of the MSM's favorite Republicans because of his war hero record which has earned their respect and any attempts to anger the press aren't really constructive for this relationship. "

Paul, the media assumed that McCain was going be like Bob Dole and run a lackluster and somewhat befuddled campaign then walked quietly into the twilight of his career. They did not expect him to actually mount a fight to win and pick a someone even more feisty like Sarah (can she go by one name now like Cher or Madonna?)

They are pissed off that McCain has not injected race into the campaign, that he really wants to win and that he picked scooped them on picking Sarah.


a. browne - "I mean "le... (Below threshold)
marc:

a. browne - "I mean "less regulation"

"I mean less substance, less filling and I'm am asshat."

There fixed for'ya.

Lorie, since the mainstream... (Below threshold)

Lorie, since the mainstream press overall, maybe with the exception of the NYT, have two presidential candidates that they reasonably like in both McCain and Obama, I just don't believe it is in McCain's interest to hurt that positive position with the media. There's much better issues to pursue in the closing days of the campaign than to start attacking the press. In fact, attacking the press often results in some sort of "gotcha" situation it seems for many politicians. Look at Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew or Gary Hart as good examples.

I'm also not entirely convinced that Mr. Obama will win this election either. Mr. McCain certainly has a nearly even chance of pulling off this election and certainly doesn't need a four year battle with the press to fight as president if he makes it. The country needs to pull together around the eventual winner for at least a while. I certainly will.

Are you kidding? The NYT w... (Below threshold)
Chad:

Are you kidding? The NYT wouldn't run a favorable article about ANY republican president. Oh they might give him/her some backhanded praises, but any article would seek to fault that president for many things. We've been seeing it for about 6 years now. I don't see them lifting their "bias" as a democrat propoganda machine anytime soon.

It was so freakin' hilariou... (Below threshold)
SouthAmericanWay:

It was so freakin' hilarious to read the headlines of the deep investigative pieces that the New York Times has published on Obama - as reported by the Obama campaign itself, as a response to the its characterization as "an Obama advocacy organization" by the McCain campaign chief:
----
In Law School, Obama Found Political Voice [New York Times, 1/28/07]

Charisma and a Search for Self In Obama's Hawaii Childhood [New York Times, 3/17/07]

A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith [New York Times, 4/30/07]

In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd. [New York Times, 7/30/07]

In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama. [New York Times, 9/9/07]

Loyal Network Backs Obama After His Help. [New York Times, 10/1/07]

A Free-Spirited Wanderer Who Set Obama's Path [New York Times, 3/14/08]

As a Professor, Obama Enthralled Students and Puzzled Faculty [New York Times, 7/30/08]
----
Again, those (among others) were presented by the Obama campaign itself as sign of the neutrality of the New York Times! By the campaign itself!

Hooson,You occasio... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Hooson,

You occasionally have something cogent to say. This is not one of those times.

The only way you can describe what exists between McCain and the NYT is this:

NYT = drug using, alcoholic, violently abusive spouse
McCain = abusee

It will be a very good thing for McCain to throw off the shackles of such a dysfunctional relationship.

I'll have what Hooson's hav... (Below threshold)
Clay:

I'll have what Hooson's having, 'cept make mine a double.

NONONO Clay!It cau... (Below threshold)
epador:

NONONO Clay!

It causes permanent brain damage and a fixation on vegetarian porn stars riding Vespas.

What a bunch of whiny, path... (Below threshold)
wbgonne:

What a bunch of whiny, pathetic morons. Your Republican party --- YOU PEOPLE -- have fu**ed this country up. Own it. If this were Japan, or if you had any decency or honor, you'd all be committing hari kari or jumping off bridges. But you don't so you won't; instead you're begging decent Americans to bail you and you filthy rich greedhead friends out of the sewer you have suck in to. I hope you don't get a dime. Stick it.
depp=true
notiz=Dirty mouth full of envy.

Paul it is increasingly cle... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Paul it is increasingly clear that the only thing you can speak intelligently to are little motor scooters. This statement:

Naturally both Obama and Palin have received a lot of positive press in the media overall, but that is largely because both are relatively new figures to most voters and there is a lot of media interest in writing about new personalities

could quite possibly be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in a comment on Wizbang. And that's saying something considering Lee used to vomit here all the time.

wbgonne: Stick it.</... (Below threshold)
Clay:

wbgonne: Stick it.

Uhm...Who's whining?

What a pathetic POS.

It causes permanent brai... (Below threshold)
Clay:

It causes permanent brain damage and a fixation on vegetarian porn stars riding Vespas.

Good point, epador. I remember now: The highs are never worth the lows.

Thanks for the intervention, bud.

My favorite part of the Oba... (Below threshold)
Clint:

My favorite part of the Obama campaign's rebuttal:

Schmidt was lying because Wexler didn't call Palin a Nazi sympathizer, he just called her a supporter of a Nazi sympathizer.

Pathetic.

Paul H. needs to first read... (Below threshold)
WildWilliew:

Paul H. needs to first read the article. Secondly, the press loved McCain only when he was crossing the republican party. McCain cannot make anything of his war hero status. Only the press can. Unlike Kerry, who said it many times. Paul, your guy should be way ahead but isn't. People are coming to their senses. Now we are starting to see stories about how people won't vote for Obama because he is black. A definite sign of desperation. ww

It's clear to me that McCai... (Below threshold)
Eve:

It's clear to me that McCain's campaign has no answer for the lobbying claim becuase it's true. They trow mud at the media to avoid fessing up or facing that very real issue. The surreal thing is that people actually fall for it.

Consider too, not what the ... (Below threshold)

Consider too, not what the NYT has ripped McCain for in the past, but what they didn't rip him for:

That abomination of immigration reform.

The horrible McCain/Feingold Act.

The "Gang of Fourteen".

In these cases, in particular, the NYT has rarely if ever "praised" McCain. They just refrained from judging him harshly, preferring to point out repeatedly how conservatives or Republicans were upset with him.

Well, of course, Steve Schm... (Below threshold)
lscarrier:

Well, of course, Steve Schmidt would be railing against the Times because Karl told him to. What's really interesting is Schmidt's "razzle-dazzle" footwork, reminiscent of Richard Gere's tap dance in "Chicago." That's when McCain, seeing the poll numbers against him, says he's not going to debate. Not going to debate? Come on. If he were really serious about the national financial crisis, then (1)Why has he missed so many Senate votes recently? (2)Why didn't he do something about it during his long Senate tenure? Do you really think that a long-time member of "The Keating Five" really has a clue? Nice try, Steve. Try to get some work after Nov. 4.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy