Top McCain aide Mark Salter has written an impassioned and entertaining response to Newsweek’s marvelously in-the-tank cover story on how Barack Obama “will battle the GOP onslaught.” Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe and Evan Thomas write that Obama has remained calm while fighting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, but

the real test is yet to come. The Republican Party has been successfully scaring voters since 1968, when Richard Nixon built a Silent Majority out of lower- and middle-class folks frightened or disturbed by hippies and student radicals and blacks rioting in the inner cities…It is a sure bet that the GOP will try to paint Obama as “the other” — as a haughty black intellectual who has Muslim roots (Obama is a Christian) and hangs around with America-haters. Obama says he’s ready for the onslaught….

Wolffe and Thomas note that Clinton has taken her share of whacks at Obama, but

A top Clinton adviser, speaking anonymously so he could be more frank, says the Clinton campaign has actually been holding back, for fear of alienating other Democrats. The Republicans “won’t suffer from such scruples,” this adviser says. Sen. John McCain himself has explicitly disavowed playing the race card or taking the low road generally. But he may not be able to resist casting doubt on Obama’s patriotism. And the real question is whether he can — or really wants to — rein in the merchants of slime and sellers of hate who populate the Internet and fund the “independent expenditure” groups who exercise their freedom in ways that give a bad name to free speech.

It’s a good thing that Clinton adviser remained unnamed, so he could be so frank about Sen. Clinton’s restraint and the Republicans’ lack of scruples. And if you read the entire article, you’ll see there’s much, much more where that came from. But do remember, this is a news story. Anyway, here are the first two graphs of Salter’s letter to Newsweek editor Jon Meacham:

A useful way to read the piece would be to try to imagine you were a Republican reading it. The characterization of Republican presidential campaigns as nothing more than attack machines that use 527s and other means to smear opponents strikes us as pretty offensive. Is that how Ronald Reagan won two terms? Do they really think other Republican presidential candidates were elected because they ran dirtier campaigns than their opponents? Or could it be that they were better candidates or ran better campaigns or maybe more voters agreed with their position on important issues? From the beginning of their article, Evan Thomas and Richard Wolffe offered a biased implication that Republicans have won elections and will try to win this one simply by tearing down through disreputable means their opponents. You can see why many Republicans and voters and our campaign might take issue with that. Suggesting that that we can expect a whispering campaign from the McCain campaign or the Republican Party about Senator Obama’s race and the false charge that he is a Muslim is scurrilous. Has John McCain ever campaigned that way? On the contrary, he has on numerous occasions denounced tactics offensive tactics from campaigns, 527s and others, both Democratic and Republican. By the way, which party had more 527 and other independent expenditure ads made on its behalf in 2004? It wasn’t us.

Read all of Salter’s letter, too.