Himes Wealth Article 'Just Plain Wrong'
To the Editor:
I have to tell you that I am appalled by your placing as the lead article on the Oct. 24 Greenwich Citizen front page the story detailing Jim Himes' savings and assets. Was that really the most important article in the entire paper?
Was it more important than the roundup of the debate roundup of the debate between Shays and Himes? Frankly, it seems a blatantly snarky attempt to demean Himes in the same manner that Lieberman (and his willing sidekick Greenwich Time) sought to smear Ned Lamont as a "Greenwich millionaire." And you didn't just print an article telling how much Himes was worth, you actually put a box on the front page with virtually every stock and bank account to his name. Was that important? Really?
I just cannot understand why a previously reputable newspaper would stoop to such a depth to expose every aspect of Himes' family worth. And to add that "Himes initially balked at answering questions about his finances" just makes it appear as if he's hiding something. Which is false.
Was there any doubt in anyone's mind that Himes had made a good bit of cash while an investment banker for a dozen years? Was that really a great revelation?
If you really think the net worth thing is so incredibly important, why don't you start asking questions (and write an article before the election) about why Shays' supposed wealth is so low? After all, Shays has been earning a six-figure income for two decades, and his wife had been making six figures as well for years in her government job with the Peace Corps. So why don't you find out just what they were spending their $300k in annual income on all these years? Is Shays really virtually broke except for his houses? But here's betting that you won't do that because the whole point was to do a hit-job on Jim Himes.
I'm really very disappointed. That article was just plain wrong. And to make it the lead article less than two weeks before the election was a dirty trick. I'm also guessing that I will never receive a reply from you or an explanation or a mea culpa (which is what's called for). And that is disappointing, too.
Sorry, Don, but it was wrong.
Sean B. Goldrick
Riverside
Goldrick is a member of the Democratic Town Committee and a frequent contributor to Letters to the Editor
================================================================
Please send your comments to GreenwichRoundup@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment