Should McCain Fire His Campaign Manager

[MossMan]

This is a curious one.

Both McCain and Obama have been suggesting that each other is tied to lobbyists for FM and FM. Accusastions from boths sides have been “overstated” in many cases.

The most serious accusation against McCain is about Campaign Manager Ric Davis. McCain said Davis had cut all ties in 2006 to the mortgage companies.

But it has come out that this is not true. Davis is an officer (part owner) of a company called Davis Manafort. This company has recieved $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac from 2006 up until last month. Davis was not receiving a salary, but he had not cut ties with the company and still had an equity stake. In other words, he was still receiving financial benefit from his companies ties to Freddie Mac

Remember, just this week McCain had promised that Davis had cut all ties to Freddie Mac in 2006.

So here’s the question: Should McCain fire Ric Davis? McCain put his credibility on the line by saying Davis had no ties to Freddie Mac and it has been shown that Davis indeed had very significant ties.

I can’t believe McCain knew about this and intentionally lied to reporters. But if Davis kept this information from McCain, should McCain send him packing?

 

[crazyforgoofy]

This is a curious one.

Both McCain and Obama have been suggesting that each other is tied to lobbyists for FM and FM. Accusastions from boths sides have been “overstated” in many cases.

The most serious accusation against McCain is about Campaign Manager Ric Davis. McCain said Davis had cut all ties in 2006 to the mortgage companies.

But it has come out that this is not true. Davis is an officer (part owner) of a company called Davis Manafort. This company has recieved $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac from 2006 up until last month. Davis was not receiving a salary, but he had not cut ties with the company and still had an equity stake. In other words, he was still receiving financial benefit from his companies ties to Freddie Mac

Remember, just this week McCain had promised that Davis had cut all ties to Freddie Mac in 2006.

So here’s the question: Should McCain fire Ric Davis? McCain put his credibility on the line by saying Davis had no ties to Freddie Mac and it has been shown that Davis indeed had very significant ties.

I can’t believe McCain knew about this and intentionally lied to reporters. But if Davis kept this information from McCain, should McCain send him packing?

Well, someone is lying. If it's Davis he ought to be fired. If it's McCain he ought to answer a lot of questions. And he needs to take an extinguisher because he pants are on fire a lot lately!

 

[lindalinda]

No, absolutely not. Loyalty is very important. He should definitely keep him at his side constantly. He is a learned advisor. I don't think he should change a thing.

 

[gmboy95]

ABSOLUTELY NOT...THIS MAN MUST STAY, IN FACT HE SHOULD FOLLOW EVERY SUGGESTION HE GETS FROM HIM....PLEASE!!!!!!!!!

 

[bimshire]

Keep Davis until November 1. By then, all credibility would have left the barn.

What a Marverick!

 

[Alicnwondrln]

Something isnt right there and he still owns the company doesnt he?
McCain should drop him and quick.

 

[Geoff_M]

National Review summed up this "scandal" quite nicely...

The Obama camp says Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought John McCain by hiring Rick Davis:

"The question that now needs to be answered is this: did Freddie Mac or any other special interests buy access to John McCain by compensating top officials, including Rick Davis?" said Obama-Biden communications director Dan Pfeiffer.

Let me help Dan Pfeiffer with this tough question: No.

You know how we know this? Because while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were paying Rick Davis, John McCain was sponsoring legislation to tighten controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, legislation that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac opposed fervently. The legislation McCain backed specifically declared that the new regulatory agency would be assigned to ensure "each regulated entity operates in a safe and sound manner, including maintenance of adequate capital and internal controls."

McCain, speaking then:

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. 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.

You would think McCain was psychic, or something.

One of the reason it went nowhere? The opposition from guys like Barack Obama. You know, the guy taking more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's folk than anybody else except Chris Dodd.

So let me spell it out for you even clearer, Dan. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae didn't have to buy access to John McCain because they had already bought your guy.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Keep Davis until November 1. By then, all credibility would have left the barn.

What a Marverick!

I don't know if you did that on purpose, but it's so bushlike, it's most appropriate!

 

[MossMan]

National Review summed up this "scandal" quite nicely...

This is an opinion from a very consevative and very republican website. That certainly doesn't mean the opinion is wrong. But the source is worth considering.

Here are a couple of facts which are undisputed from the McCain camp.

McCain said Davis has had no ties to Freddie Mac since 2006.
Davis is a director of a company that has received $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac since 2006 until last month.
Davis still has an equity stake in the company.
Davis still has involvement as a director of the company.
Though owning the some portion of the company, Davis is no longer a salaried employee of the company.

So when McCain said Davis had no financial ties to Freddie Mac, he was wrong.

It may be true that Obama is a very bad man who is surrounded by other bad men. But this story has exactly nothing to do with Obama. Obama didn't force McCain to hire Davis and he didn't force McCain to make that statement.

Leaving Obama out of it for a second, normally when a campaign manager embarrasses their candidate like this, there is a question whether the campaign manager should be fired.

Should McCain fire Davis.

Straight forward set of facts and straight forward question.

 

[CowboyCO]

No.

Davis hasn't been involved in the day-to-day operations of the company since 2006. He hasn't been on the payroll since 2006. He hasn't been on the board, or been given any compensation of any kind, period.

But isn't Obama's chief financial advisor responsibkle for fraudulent reporting by Fannie mae, which he was in charge of? Hasn't Obama received tons of money from fanny mae? If people are looking for conflicts of interest they need look no further than the Obama campaign.

 

[Amirah95]

Keep Davis until November 1. By then, all credibility would have left the barn.

What a Marverick!

You said what I was thinking when I saw the subject of this thread. Keep Davis McCain! Keep him!

 

[MossMan]

No.

Davis hasn't been involved in the day-to-day operations of the company since 2006. He hasn't been on the payroll since 2006. He hasn't been on the board, or been given any compensation of any kind, period.

But isn't Obama's chief financial advisor responsibkle for fraudulent reporting by Fannie mae, which he was in charge of? Hasn't Obama received tons of money from fanny mae? If people are looking for conflicts of interest they need look no further than the Obama campaign.

But that's not true.

In April 2008, the Virginia Corporation Commission listed Davis as an officer and director of the company. The same filing also stated that Davis was the Treasurer and Clerk of the Company. (By the way, there was a similar filing with similar information from 2007 as well)

So while Davis may have not been an employee of the firm, her certainly connected to it. The $15,000 a month recieved from Freddie Mac would have clearly benefited his equity stake in the company and given his position within the firm, he would have been aware of the relationship his firm had with Freddie Mac.

So when McCain vehemently denied Davis's involvement with the firm, somebody wasn't telling the truth. If it was Davis who misinformed McCain, shouldn't McCain fire Davis.

 

[mickeyfan1]

I don't know if he should fire him or if the man should resign on his own, but I want to know where I sign up for a position of non authority or influence and get paid $15K per month. Because that seems like a sweet deal.

 

[disneyjunkie]

I don't know if he should fire him or if the man should resign on his own, but I want to know where I sign up for a position of non authority or influence and get paid $15K per month. Because that seems like a sweet deal.

When you find out, please share the info with the rest of us.

 

[MossMan]

I don't know if he should fire him or if the man should resign on his own, but I want to know where I sign up for a position of non authority or influence and get paid $15K per month. Because that seems like a sweet deal.

Are you suggesting that Freddie M. was paying Davis's firm 15K a month to do nothing because it wanted access to McCain through Davis? Because there is no evidence that is what was going on.

It's true, Davis's firm was collecting the money and it provided no services in return. That's $350,000 over 2 years for doing nothing. Pretty sweet deal for Davis's firm.

But directly to your point, I saw a similar deal to this in the help wanted section last week. So these situations are out there. In this one you stayed home and did whatever you wanted while getting $6,000 a month. $6,000 sure isn't $15,000, so maybe they came up short on applicants. If you're interested just get hold of last Saturday's paper.

 

[mickeyfan1]

Are you suggesting that Freddie M. was paying Davis's firm 15K a month to do nothing because it wanted access to McCain through Davis? Because there is no evidence that is what was going on.

It's true, Davis's firm was collecting the money and it provided no services in return. That's $350,000 over 2 years for doing nothing. Pretty sweet deal for Davis's firm.

But directly to your point, I saw a similar deal to this in the help wanted section last week. So these situations are out there. In this one you stayed home and did whatever you wanted while getting $6,000 a month. $6,000 sure isn't $15,000, so maybe they came up short on applicants. If you're interested just get hold of last Saturday's paper.

No, I am not suggesting that he was paid to be the insider. All I want is a job where I can not have to do anything and get paid 15K a month. 6K is fine too. Hell, I'll sit on my fat white *** for 2K, I am not that picky. But sadly, where I live there are no jobs like that EVER.

 

[MossMan]

No, I am not suggesting that he was paid to be the insider. All I want is a job where I can not have to do anything and get paid 15K a month. 6K is fine too. Hell, I'll sit on my fat white *** for 2K, I am not that picky. But sadly, where I live there are no jobs like that EVER.

Keep looking my friend. I too am in search of such a job.

In the meantime maybe we shouldn't be too hard on Davis for finding such a position. I sure don't want to sound like sour grapes. You could say I'm jelous because my job requires me to go to work and actually work for the pittance I'm paid.

I just seems to me that if a candidate one day says their campaign manager has no ties to Freddie Mac and 2 days later that statement is shown as being provably untrue, shouldn't there have to be some kind of accounting? Why would McCain make such a statement if knew it was untrue. That seems a little reckless to me. Or was it that McCain just didn't know his Campaign Manager was deep in the pockets of Freddie Mac.

 

[Laura]

But isn't Obama's chief financial advisor responsibkle for fraudulent reporting by Fannie mae, which he was in charge of?

Raines is not Obama's chief financial adviser.

Linking Obama to Ex-Fannie Mae Chief Is a Stretch

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091903604.html

Hasn't Obama received tons of money from fanny mae?

$105,849 isn't tons of money, and it's not from Fannie and Freddie directly, but from people with ties to the companies.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122083279354208543.html?mod=todays_us_page_one