Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, 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.

Further, and missing from the Times’ reporting, Mr. Davis has never — never — been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

However, the Times’ story did not say “Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month,” as the campaign asserts. Rather, it clearly states that Davis’ firm was paid by Freddie Mac until last month. Neither does the article make any of the other straw-man arguments that the campaign takes issue with.

The article does seem to raise questions about Davis’ use of his connection to Sen. John McCain. His firm’s clients seem to think it’s a very good idea to maintain ties to Davis, in the event that McCain becomes president. It also makes clear the McCain campaign’s hypocrisy in attacking Sen. Barack Obama for his ties to Jim Johnson, a former Fannie Mae CEO — when the McCain campaign’s ties to Freddie Mac are more recent and direct. Not surprisingly, the McCain campaign’s statement does not address these issues. Instead, it would rather attack the messenger, again.

In the ad, the soldiers are replaced by Treasury Sec. Henry Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and President George W. Bush (who has a bottle of liquor in his belt) all clad in military garb. The trio are hoisting an American flag — with the stars replaced by a Soviet-style hammer-and-sickle — in a cemetery near the graves of “Private Enterprise” and “Capitalism.” Above the scene is an insignia that reads, “The New Communist.” Subtle, right?

Underneath the artwork is a notification that the ad was paid for by Bill Perkins of Houston. My curiosity piqued, I decided to try to track him down. The address listed in the ad was for a mailbox service, so I ran a search on OpenSecrets.org to see if Perkins had made any campaign contributions lately. The results were surprising. I had expected that Perkins — clearly a strident anti-Communist — would probably be a conservative Republican or a Ron Paul supporter.

I actually found that while he donated $2,000 to President George W. Bush in 2004, Perkins also gave $10,000 to the Democratic National Committee that year. This election cycle, Perkins donated the maximum $2,300 to Sen. Barack Obama, as well as $1,000 to Sen. Christopher Dodd in May. I also learned that Perkins is the president of a company called Small Ventures USA. With that information, I was able to get in touch with Perkins for a short interview.

A little background: Perkins said he is a natural gas trader and an energy project developer. He describes himself as a libertarian and an Obama supporter. He donated to Dodd after the Connecticut senator endorsed Obama, to help relieve his campaign debt.

Perkins said he commissioned the ad from Otabenga Jones & Associates, an art collective he patronizes that produce artwork from an Afro-centric perspective. The ad cost him $130,000. I asked if it was worth the eye-popping sum. His answer was an unequivocal “Yes.”

“Sometimes freedom costs,” Perkins said. “I’m an American citizen, a patriot. I want to stick my two cents in there and stir up the pot. Maybe [the bailout] isn’t the right thing to do.”

Though it seems fairly obvious, I asked what the ad was trying to say.

“I felt the need to discuss the direction of the country, and the broader implications that are not being focused on,” Perkins said. “I’m trying to say that there’s a communist — or socialist revolution — going on in this country. Before we go down that path, there needs to be a discussion, if that’s the way we want to go…If it is socialism, OK. How far is this going to go? Completely? How is this going to work? ”

He described the Wall Street bailout as “trickle-down communism,” or “capitalism on the way up, communism on the way down.” The hurried atmosphere surrounding the Wall Street bailout reminds him of the Bush administration’s rush to war in Iraq, he said.

“This country’s been through a lot,” Perkins said. “We can handle it. We don’t need to totally change our economy, trample our Constitution and set up new powers for the executive branch, without having a full, in-depth analysis of whether this is the right path.”

Perkins said he was surprised that so many Republicans are embracing the bailouts.

“It’s amazing. It’s like finding out your best friend is gay,” Perkins said. “It’s like, ‘By the way, I’m a socialist. Didn’t you know that?’”