NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Drudge Posted on Monday, July 21, 2008
"An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.
'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'
In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'
NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'
[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]
A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."
McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.'
Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.
'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.' Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.' "
z: OH, it had to be ARTICULATE, if only McCain had been TOLD that, huh?
geeeeeeeeeeeZ! and thanks, WV DOTTR
35 comments:
Yeah, he had to be an articulate white candidate for president. Yeeesh!
Dr. J, I don't quite follow you....as Lucy would say to Ricky..'splain!
(and good to have you here)
if there is one positive in all this tilted obama fawning, it is the media is finally coming out of the closet with their biases. so the left's screams of "equal" coverage will have no defense.
Did Obama define Victory OR Defeat? How come "getting out" requires no further definition (especially since it equates with defacto defeat) but "victory" has to be defined to the Times?
If you don't get blisters on your feet during the great egress from Iraq must mean you never suffered de agony of de feet.
*shakes head*
I suspect they think that McCain shouldn't use the word "victory" and should rewrite his article only to say that we're "staying". The Times sure wouldn't want their readers to start equating "continued possession of territory or the battlefield" post-war with victory or anything... ???
Perhaps they should screen NYT writers for political bias with a simple question:
Are you non-partisan or Republican.
Hmmm... define "Victory in Iraq"... why can't there can't be "gradations"?
At a minimum, it is... "imposing your will upon the enemy by denying them their objectives until THEY lose the will to continue the fight and depart." I would equate this with perhaps something akin to a phyrric victory.
And perhaps a "secondary" gradation of victory would consist of "containing the enemy to a specific geographical region and rendering him incapable of imposing his objectives upon anyone but himself and those withing the immediate area in which his movement is contained.
And perhaps a "tertiary" gradation of victory would be to render him physically harmless and dependent upon you for his immediate survival.
And perhaps a fourth gradation would be to render him physically and mentally helpless/harmless and dependent upon you for his long-term survival.
And perhaps the fifth and final gradation would be to obliterate him and render any further thought of him, moot.
Now, when is Obama going to own up to the fact that the terrorists have stated that they aren't going to stop until they've achieved a "level 5" victory?
That little comic there is absolutely hilarious!!!
Pops, I have a feeling that wonderful cartoon will be coming out here real frequently. I loved it, though I think the truth about it is utterly disgusting and unAmerican....
FJ..the left has to have utter perfection. DO a war, accomplish exactly what we need. And leave. And everything will be fine.There is no room for problems and, if there are problems, it's WE who erred, not the fact that war is hell and one rarely knows the outcome in advance or how to definitively achieve that outcome...with NO MESS, that is.
Oh, and nobody had better die in the doing.
OMG! That is outrageous! But what else would one expect from the New York SLIME? Pfffffft!
z - i just saw an ad for this movie exposing the HYPE on nobama!
Z -- as our friend Hermit was so good to remind us:
1 - The important things are simple.
2 - The simple things are very hard.
3 - No plan survives the first contact intact.
4 - Perfect plans aren't.
From "Murphy's Laws of War"
Who is this Shipley creep?
I don't know , but when I was a kid , the term rebuttal conotated a type of difference of opinion on a subject.
Didn't it?
What a dork this person is.
Well, I say keep on pouring it on, NYT.
You know, there is a point when even the dumbest of us out here in fly over country is going to just feel so sorry for McCain, that who knows, maybe Mr. Obama will lose in a landslide.
We in America tend to root for the underdog.
WVDOTTR
Well, it's simple. The NYT defines victory as.... Obama Wins!
They probably already have the Headline prepared for November.
Pat- It doesn't matter that there is no defense for their bias, they have no scruples. A little thing like that doesn't matter to these people.
They're professional liars, and they don't care about how it looks, or how loud honest folks yell. In fact they probably have a good laugh over it.
These aren't newspeople, they lost the right to call themselves that. They're con men/women with way too much power, and they know it, and don't care.
Pris
I think the MSM is doing themselves in. The public appears to be getting more and more restless about this nonsense. Numbers down for print and broadcast liberal media. Extreme bias like this is only going to push them further down.
One other thought occurs to me looking at your cartoon, other than it is funny. If the Dems can't win this election, with the extreme media bias, they're going to have some real soul searching to do.
chuck, if the Dems DO win this election, we'll have searching to do for AMERICA!
Hey, everybody..Chuck's got some good posts on media bias; i highly recommend it. he's on my blogroll..
I would say it's unbelievable, but i'm not surprised, the MSM shrugged off any sense of balance, fairness and integrity decades ago. They stopped caring what we think and treat us like a bunch of savages.
Biased, sneering, sniveling, slimeballs. I read elsewhere that the NYT stock price has been tanking for years now. Please let it tank and tank away till the vermin have to start earning our respect and dollar once again.
That would be unbelievable in a normal world, but the Times never, ever bothers to hide its bias. The tragedy is that anybody fair-thinking person continues to buy such shameless trash.
So here we have John McCain, a strutting little martinet who proudly proclaims that "I know how to win wars".
Then the Times asks him to at least rough out what he means by victory and the little punk can't deliver. Why, because he has no more idea than a hammer about what's going on.
He crashes a jet and that means he "knows how to win wars". Stop. Good that someone called him on it.
Ducky, I happen to agree that haviing been a POW does not prepare anyone for the presidency.
Having said that...ARE YOU THINKING?
NO NEWSPAPER TURNS DOWN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S EDITORIAL and you know it.
And how many freaking times do Bush OR McCain have to tell you what they see as victory before people like you GET IT? That you don't like it isn't THEIR fault.
Then we have Obama's people telling the women journalists following him with their little tongues hanging out not to wear HAMAS GREEN....no nail polish. No jewelry.
You suppose he'll be asking muslim women journalists here to get that burkha off?
just wondering. I mean, if you're going to demand people honor another's culture.........??
OH, I KNOW, we don't HAVE a culture, THEY do.
Vote Obama.....their culture will BE our culture.
thanks for coming by.
since when does an op-ed piece need to be changed to suit a paper? this media bias circus is just sooo annoying!
~m
The NYT editorial policy is: "Don't confuse me with facts, just tell me what I want to hear." I agree ... Pfffft.
Notice how the MSM doesn't even bother to deny the liberal bias anymore. They're boldly being biased!
HOW can America not see the bias?
I swear I'm starting to think some Obama supporters who haven't really checked into his platform but just like the guy ARE going to start seeing the incredible tilt of the media and maybe they will look into him, really look? maybe they'll actually start seeing the bias and demand something better!?
i can dream.
Then the Times asks him to at least rough out what he means by victory and the little punk can't deliver. Why, because he has no more idea than a hammer about what's going on.
And Obama's got all the smarts of a nail head on the coffin of his presidential ambitions. Just where exactly did Obama specify his "plan for victory"? For the past several years, he's only invested himself in a "plan for defeat".
And how does Senator McCain get his op-ed piece in the NYTimes during this Election Season? As Mark Levin suggests, he should just stuff it in a folder marked, "government secrets and classified national security documents inside".
Wordsmith..WELL PUT! THAT is hilarious and SO true.
THEN they'd publish it. no doubt about it!
HOW can America not see the bias?
----------------
This is a kick. Someone tells candidate McCheese that if he's going to write an article saying we won in Iraq then he is going to have to spend a few words quantifying the nature of "winning" (what have we won? A free scratch ticket? cheap oil?) and suddenly this is proof of the vast media conspiracy against him.
You all seem upset that Tim Russet is gone and won't be kissing 'the maverick's" butt.
Ducky, your bias is showing again.
NO NEWSPAPERS TURN PRES CANDIDATES DOWN
As IF the plans McCain's talked about don't exist and Obama's years of foreign experience make a good plan!? Oh, I KNOW...you think McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years, right?
get real.
Do we expect anything more out of the NY Times? It is disgusting, though not surprising.
Z - Wasn't there some brouhaha about someone calling Obama the first articulate black candidate or something several months back? That's what I was getting at (rather poorly it seems). :-)
Dr. John, you're right..I just was a little thick getting your comment. sorry!
Incog: absolutely, but THIS obvious? And the lefty pundists are still on TV acting as if the NYTimes did nothing unusual!!
They probably don't see it as obvious, Z.. and everyone is so duped nothing is going resonate or even matter when it comes to Obama.
Did you see the Andrea Mitchell meltdown on Mathews' show? She actually said she was ticked that they're not getting near Obama. Chris M asked her a question and she responded with "If I were THERE, I'd have been able to tell you the answer..as it is, we're being allowed very little access!"
MITCHELL? of course, she was a big Hillary fan.
many are saying Obama doesn't have the nod 100% ...should get interesting!
No, Obama does not technically have the nomination.
John Edwards WAS on the list for VP, but Johnny got caught coming out of mistress's room this morning in the wee hours/
Do you suppose those delegates Edwards had might be promised to someone?
WVDOTTR
It was Joe Biden who made the comment about Obama being the first articulate Black candidate.
WVDOTTR
I'm going to wait until Obama's nomination is official before I welcome the Democratic PArty into the 21st Century.
There's still enough Klansmen in the Democratic Party to swing the nomination to Hillary.
Post a Comment