Beleaguered incumbent GA Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, significantly trailing challenger Hank Johnson in recent runoff polls, lashed out at the Atlanta Journal Constitution by allegedly demanding the paper issue a retraction regarding commentary in Editorial Page Editor Cynthia Tucker's July 30 column entitled "Voters Can See Through McKinney".
Tucker's insightful and very accurate editorial page portrayal of McKinney's foibles and lack of effectiveness in Congress has been posted in previous diaries, but for those who haven't read it, it can be found at this AJC link.
In typical McKinney grandstanding fashion, and showing her predictable tendency to blame others for her own self-immolation, she had her attorney issue a retraction demand to the AJC regarding five specific points made by Tucker in her column. Here is the content of the demand letter, for your entertainment, below the fold:
July 31, 2006
Cynthia Tucker,
Editor, Editorial Page
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
72 Marietta St.
Atlanta GA 30303
John Mellott, Publisher
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
72 Marietta St.
Atlanta GA 30303
Dear Ms. Tucker and Mr. Mellott:
This will inform you that I represent Congresswoman Cynthia A. McKinney.
This will inform you that the Sunday, July 30, 2006 column by Cynthia Tucker, Editorial Page
Editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, contained the following material that was untrue, defamatory and libelous:
1. Tucker wrote that "she (the Congresswoman) slugged him (the officer) with her
cellphone." This false allegation is not supported by any witness or any other evidence. Additionally, Tucker is maliciously attempting to spin this into a felony by falsely alleging that she assaulted the officer with a deadly weapon.
2. Instead of admitting the fact that the officer used force by grabbing the
Congresswoman, Tucker states only that the officer "stopped her."
3. Tucker falsely attempts to attribute words from her father to her by stating that "her
father, a spokesman for her campaign." Her father was not a spokesman for the campaign.
4. Tucker wrote of Congresswoman McKinney: "She suggested that President Bush had known in advance about the Sept. 11 attacks but did nothing to stop them so his friends could profit from the ensuing war."
The award winning documentary film "American Blackout"
definitively exposed this statement by Tucker as false, as the Congresswoman never made this statement even though Tucker continues to assert that she did.
5. Tucker falsely wrote: "She doesn't have the power or prestige to pass a resolution in support of sweetened ice tea."
On the contrary, a study has been done that shows that
Congresswoman McKinney is more effective than John Lewis, the Congressman that Tucker claims is effective. The Power Rankings by Congress.org show that Congresswoman McKinney
ranked number 277 of 435 Congresspersons in legislative effectiveness. She was the highest ranking Georgia democrat followed by Congressman Barrow (337); Congressman Marshall (347); Congressman Scott (367); Congressman Lewis (433); and Congressman Bishop (434).
If Congresswoman McKinney was not effective why would the Republicans, the special interests
and the Cox media empire be expending so much money and effort to stop her?
This letter constitutes a demand under OCGA 51-5-11 for immediate retraction in writing these false and libelous statements.
In accordance with OCGA 51-5-11(b)(1)(C) Congresswoman McKinney demands that your retraction and correction be accompanied by an editorial in which you specifically repudiate your libelous statements. Tucker and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution have made these statements maliciously and with intent to injure the Congresswoman in her office and profession.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
J.M. Raffauf
And here's the veiled threat of a lawsuit:
McKinney attorney Raffauf says that he sent two retraction letters to the paper on Monday, and added that a lawsuit was still possible. "We're going to wait and see if they respond and what they're response is.
You can read the entire article here, courtesy of TPM Café.
This new episode in cheap histrionics seems laughable. Although I am not an attorney (and I hope we have some lawyers with knowledge of libel issues who will comment), it seems it would be very difficult for a public figure to prove libel based on an opinion column, and even less so with the spurious charges contained in the McKinney demand letter to the AJC.
Although, IMHO, all five points in the letter lack serious merit, it's especially easy to refute the last allegation in the retraction demand letter, #5. It's is an especially pitiful and inaccurate attempt to portray McKinney as an effective legislator by falsely slamming our highly respected GA-05 Congressman John Lewis, who has refused to endorse McKinney. It's too bad the lawyer can't even get his facts straight. In the Congress.org power rankings McKinney ranks 408 out of of 432. John Lewis is ranked at 277. You can read the stats here. In terms of these "power" ratings, she's one of the worst. No surprise.
So it's the special interests (McKinney has raised far more "special interest" money than her opponent), the Republicans (who actually stand to lose if they don't have McKinney around in their attempts to label Dems as nutjobs), and the big, bad Cox media empire out to defame Cynthia McKinney, always the victim.
I have a feeling the AJC editorial board isn't exactly quivering in its boots over this.