The McCain campaign issues a 698 word response to the stories in the NYT, Newsweek and Roll Call accusing McCain campaign manager Rick Davis of continuing to receive financial benefits from Fannie and Freddie up until last month - contradicting what McCain and Davis both claimed to be the case. The stories are incredibly damaging, as they imply that Fannie and Freddie were trying to gild Davis' pockets in order to buy favor with McCain- this isn't about lobbying, it's about whether someone was paid a bribe to buy John McCain. As Ben Smith notes, in its entire statement the McCain campaign never once denies the allegation. I'd also add that attacking the NYT is cute when Roll Call and Newsweek confirmed the same story.
The statement is basically a non-denial. Part of its focus is to dispute the Times's suggestion that Davis's ownership of Davis Manafort means that he benefits even if he's on leave of absence. There are reasonable arguments on both sides there. The statement also argues that the Times tilts toward the Democrat, and makes guesses about the paper's motives, all reasonable and arguable.
What the statement doesn't dispute is the actual news in the story: the $15,000 monthly payments from Freddie Mac, which began while Davis was still running the firm. You can judge the news value of that for yourself.
So don't mistake the extended non-denial for an argument about the substance of the story. At this point in the race, details like that may be less important than broader electoral positioning, and the campaign seeks to escalate this into an argument with the Times, rather than a conversation about Davis's ties. The question is whether the conservative base -- which hotly contested negative stories about Sarah Palin -- will defend Davis, not a particular conservative hero, with the same vigo
