Covering (for) John McCain

At least up until yesterday, John McCain has had no greater friend than the NYTimes. Despite its hilarious claim that the Times is cheering for Obama, McCain's own campaign has sent out scores of emails quoting the NYTimes to support their political attacks. Note that this is the same Barack Obama who can't get the Times to whisper the words "Keating Five" even as the S&L scandal redux 'squared' is playing out before our eyes.

Look, I don't blame the NYTimes for secretly backing McCain, knowing his zeal for deregulation... the paper is trying to swim as close as it can down the middle in an age of global-anti-state corporatism. But if you're assuming the mantle as the "Paper of Record" it's hard to keep shying from printing the whole truth while resorting to token jabs and innuendo.

Take this latest brouhaha over the influence of lobbyists. The NYTimes ran the story that mortgage giant Freddie Mac paid @ $345,000 to the lobbying and consulting firm of John McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis. In response the McCain camp howled that the NYTimes is in the "tank" for Obama. But the Times had not disclosed the whole story. As Newsweek reports: Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, based in Washington, D.C., continued to receive $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac until last month—long after the Homeownership Alliance had been terminated. One can only hope that, now that they've been slammed for trying to limit the damage, the NYTimes will deign to revisit their own reporting on the "Keating 5":

"to excuse Senators McCain and Glenn now would ignore actions in which all five Senators took part... [ N] otably, all five participated in two extraordinary meetings in April 1987, when four and later all five summoned the Federal Home Loan Bank Board chairman and key officials of the board's San Francisco office to Capitol Hill. The Senators cross-examined the regulators about their proposed tough actions against Mr. Keating, who made large campaign contributions to each Senator.

Insiders know how hard it is to get five senators together for any business, sometimes even for hearings. Charles Keating mustered five. This show of force was not lost on the regulators. They backed off, even as Mr. Keating's institution headed toward a collapse that will cost taxpayers $2 billion."

Now we learn that McCain's campaign manager and later that campaign manager's firm were being kept on retainer while Freddie Mac was under an ethics cloud, and being tied to the current financial meltdown. Step back and think about what the "paper of record" would have to say had that campaign manager been representing Barack Obama. But it shouldn't be surprising. Consider how the NYtimes reported on the campaign during the crisis in Georgia.

As "BeyondTimes" points out: "Many of [the Times'] stories seem lifted from the Republican playbook. [ ] on August 15, the Times ran a major story that was so inaccurate, and so counter to the prevailing media frame, that its reporter appeared to have become seriously detached from reality. In “McCain Displays Credentials as Obama Relaxes,” reporter Michael Falcone argued that while “Obama’s voice seems muted,” McCain handled the Russia-Georgia crisis with “fluency,” lending the Republican “an aura of commander in chief.”

[In fact] the story makes no mention of the Georgia lobbyist on the McCain payroll. Instead, the paper withheld this critical fact from readers while touting McCain’s alleged “fluency” with which he discussed Georgia.

So tell us, John McCain, what exactly do you have to whine about with the NYTimes?

Or is this the Bush Political Doctrine of a preventive first strike? Hello, FBI?