"Today the New York Times launched yet another in a series of vicious attacks on Senator John McCain, this time targeting not the candidate, but his wife Cindy," writes McCain-Palin spokesman Michael Goldfarb. "Under the guise of a ‘profile’ piece, the New York Times fails to cover any new ground or provide any discernible value to the reader other than to portray Mrs. McCain in the worst possible light."
Continues Goldfarb, "Mrs. McCain’s battle with drug addiction and even her miscarriages are again reported, the paper entirely ignores a life devoted to family and charity work in the most impoverished and violent corners of the world — except when a detail can be quibbled with so as to imply some kind of deceit. This campaign made every effort to share personal accounts of Mrs. McCain’s good works with the paper, but apparently they were deemed unfit for publication in the New York Times. This is gutter journalism at its worst — an unprecedented attack on a presidential candidate’s spouse."
The Times story to which he refers can be read HERE.
(And incidentally, the Times also today takes a closer look at some of the past corporate clients of Obama’s top adviser, David Axelrod, which can be read HERE.)
Labeling the story a "hit piece," Goldfarb writes, "The New York Times has stooped lower than this campaign ever imagined possible in an attempt to discredit a woman whose only apparent sin is being married to the man that would oppose that paper’s preferred candidate, Barack Obama, in his quest for the Presidency. It is a black mark on the record of a paper that was once widely respected, but is now little more than a propaganda organ for the Democratic party. The New York Times has accused John McCain of running a dishonorable campaign, but today it is plain to see where the real dishonor lies."
In addition, Cindy McCain’s lawyer John Dowd writes to the Times’ executive editor, which the McCain campaign has released to the press:
"It is worth noting that you have not employed your investigative assets looking into Michelle Obama," Dowd writes. "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."
(Interesting. So before an audience of national media, Dowd is invoking the "drug dealer" from the Democrat’s youthful use of pot and cocaine in order to decry such irrelevancies.)
"I suggest to you that none of these subjects on either side are worthy of the energy and resources of The New York Times," he concludes. "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."