Behind McCain, Outsider in Capital Wanting Back In
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/po ... ref=slogin
A composite of every negative soundbite the Dem dirt machine has spun on Cindy McCain. Utterly foul hate piece. Simply amazed that any adult in American journalism would allow their name to be associated with the authoring of this hit piece, or editorially allow it to go to press.
Dem's...it's gut check time. Is this the kind of hate based attitude you want running our country? You can reply with the 'de rigeur' "Rush, Conk, Bush, Cheney" defensive rhetoric...but even if you're correct about the Conk extremists, does that ethically justify condoning pure hate/hit pieces like the NYT's'?
Too may times, otherwise good, decent, Democrats have been relegated to lying and compromising ethic and morality, for the sake of defending the "pride" of Democrats and liberalism. Most Americans, conservative and liberal, had (and still have) respect for the "traditional" platforms of the Democrat party, which USED TO represent the best interests of our country and the working class. And did so with an air of dignity, tenacity, and justifiable self-righteousness.
What happened to that party?
I am not (nor have ever been) a Republican, as when I was young, I did not feel they placed sufficient value or respect to the working (operative word: "working") class. More so, they're elitist attitudes and exclusionary behaviors were, IMO, inappropriately un-American.
As I sit here this week, however, watching McCain defend "Joe the Plumber", the hypothetical working class American who just wants to start their own business and try to earn their piece of The American Dream, without having that dream plundered and smothered by big government, and further watch the unconstitutional behavior of Dem operatives busy attempting to slander and silence those, including middle class folks like "Joe the Plumber" who dare criticize "The Party's" candidate (akin to the Al Gore "silence the critic through slander, then ignore debate" handbook), I am thoroughly convinced that then Democrat Party has adopted all the negative traits incumbent to both parties.
Other than being extremist degree pro-abortion, pro-LGBT rights, anti-business, and pro-government control of all human activity under the guise of "environmental protection"...
...what values does today's Democrat Party stand for?
What "American" values, as our framers envisioned the United States, does the Democrat Party stand for?
This NYT hit piece wasn't born out of some religious, ethical or ethnic difference. Right or wrong, those differences are based upon some perceived sense of moral responsibility. Their article was a willful, conscious defamation against the wife of a politician.
In any event, this may end up costing Pinch a few dollars before the final word is written...
http://lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=430966
THE STICK:
Below is a letter from Cindy McCain's lawyer to the editor of the Times about this article.
Jodi Kantor
Political correspondent
New York Times
kantor@nytimes.com
212 556 4596
###
Dear Mr. Keller:
I represent Cindy McCain. I write to appeal to your sense of fairness, balance and decency in deciding whether to publish another story about her. I do this well knowing your obvious bias for Barack Obama and your obvious bias hositility to John McCain. I ask you to put your biases and agendas aside.
I understand that Cindy is in the public eye, but you have already profiled her extensively (Jennifer Steinhauer reported), written about her financial situation (including an editorial on her tax returns) and about her role at Hensley and Company.
I am advised that you assigned two of your top investigative reporters who have spent an extensive amount of time in Arizona and around the country investigating Cindy's life including her charity, her addiction and her marriage to Senator McCain. None of these subjects are news.
I am also advised that your reporters are speaking to Tom Gosinski and her cousin Jamie Clark, neither of whom are reliable or credible sources. Mr. Gosinski has been publicly exposed as a liar and blackmailer on the subject of Cindy McCain. Jamie Clark has very serious drug and stability issues and has failed in a number of attempts to blackmail Cindy. She is simply not credible.
In 1994, Mr. Gosinski drafted a civil complaint for damages claiming, among other things, that Cindy had defamed him with prospective employers after he was discharged from AVMT. Those allegations were utterly false. He was unable to produce any prospective employers and Cindy had not discussed his deficiencies as an employee with anyone outside of AVMT. Indeed, his termination was demonstrated to be appropriate and when he was let go, Cindy gave him severance pay. When confronted with this evidence, his lawyer resigned. Gosinski never filed the complaint in Court and could produce no evidence to support any of its allegations. He attempted to have Cindy pay him $250,000 in exchange for not filing the complaint. Cindy refused and made his attempt to extort her public.
Thereafter, he amended his complaint to allege that Cindy asked him to commit perjury in the adoption proceed involving Bridget McCain. The notes of Cindy's counsel and the official transcript of the adoption proceedings clearly demonstrate that Gosinski's was never asked to lie and did not falsely testify in the proceeding. His allegation was an utter fabrication. Gosinski further alleged that Cindy used his name to obtain pain killers for her own personal use. The records of AVMT show that Dr. Max Johnson, licensed by the DEA to order drugs, directed the use of employee names on the prescriptions. The drugs obtained using Mr. Gosinski's name were used and donated on an AVMT trip to El Salvador. They were not used by Cindy.
These allegations and efforts to hurt Cindy have been a matter of public record for sixteen years. Cindy has been quite open and frank about her issues for all these years. Any further attempts to harass and injure her based on the information from Gosinski and Clark will be met with an appropriate response. While she may be in the public eye, she is not public property nor the property of the press to abuse and defame.
It is worth noting that you have not employed your investigative assets looking into Michelle Obama. You have not tried to find Barack Obama's drug dealer that he wrote about in his book, Dreams of My Father. Nor have you interviewed his poor relatives in Kenya and determined why Barack Obama has not rescued them. Thus, there is a terrific lack of balance here.
I suggest to you that none of these subjects on either side are worthy of the energy and resources of The New York Times. They are cruel hit pieces designed to injure people that only the worst rag would investigate and publish. I know you and your colleagues are always preaching about raising the level of civil discourse in our political campaigns. I think taking some your own medicine is in order here.
I ask you to let Cindy McCain carry on in her usual understated, selfless and dignified way. The fabrications and lies of blackmailers are not fit to print in any newspaper but particularly not in The New York Times.
Sincerely,
John M. Dowd
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP