« | »

The NYT’s Latest Smear Of Cindy McCain

As you are probably aware by now, the New York Times has taken time away from exposing our country’s most vital secrets to publish yet another hit piece upon the McCain family.

The article itself is typical of what now passes for journalism at The Times, with passages such as:

Behind McCain, Outsider in Capital Wanting Back In

Published: October 17, 2008

… When The New York Times reported last winter that Mr. McCain’s staffers had urged him to stay away from a female lobbyist during his first presidential run, Mrs. McCain stood by her husband at a news conference and defended his honor…

Never mind that the NYT article mentioned was a complete and utter fabrication.

Just slip in the lie once more. As their spiritual ancestors taught, if you repeat it enough it will become the truth.

The McCain campaign’s lawyer has even written the despicable Times editor, Bill Keller, as reported by CBS News:

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 obvios 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.

John M. Dowd
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Of course it is preposterous to suggest that anyone at the New York Times has a “sense of fairness.” But lawyers have to say preposterous things all of the time.

Mind you, Jodi Kantor is the same “reporter” who did a laughable whitewash of Mr. Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor of twenty years, Reverend Wright.

But, to be fair, Ms. Kantor is just a paid whore whose job at the moment is to get Mr. Obama elected.

This article was posted by Steve on Saturday, October 18th, 2008. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “The NYT’s Latest Smear Of Cindy McCain”

  1. JannyMae says:

    …and the piece tearing apart Michelle Obama will be coming when….WHEN????


    This is truly disgusting. I’m glad McCain struck back. If there is anyone left who doesn’t, “see,” this bias, they never will.

  2. GuppyNblue says:

    That NY Times article read like a teen gossip magazine. “Those close to Mrs. McCain say she aspires to be like another blonde”. Who are “those close to Mrs. McCain” and what does being a blonde have to do with anything? And then they go on recycling old news.

    BTW the link seems to have moved to members only page.

  3. artboyusa says:

    “…and the piece tearing apart Michelle Obama will be coming when….WHEN????” You said it Janny…sound of tumbleweeds blowing past, coyotes howling in the distance…followed by silence.

  4. platypus says:

    Actually, this article by the NY Times is good for both McCains. It clearly has nothing new to add to their known history, and consequently is clearly seen as a rehash.

    In short, it is the NY Tomes solidifying its bona fides with its lunatic supporters on the left, should the unthinkable happen and The One fails to close the deal on November 4th.

    If I were McCain, I would draw direct attention to this article as vindication of the Straight Talk Express aspect of the campaign – there’s no hidden dirt on this candidate.

    What about the other candidate? Well, we just don’t know because he won’t tell and the Times won’t ask.

    Should we find out now or find out later? Should we run the risk of another tainted presidency, when we have a fully vetted candidate named John McCain?

« Front Page | To Top
« | »