Posted on 07/21/2008 9:09:19 AM PDT by edzo4
NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET
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.'
MORE
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.]
MORE
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.'
MORE
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.'
Developing...
Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.
Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.
Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.
CNN published it.
McCain’s rejected New York Times op-ed piece (FULL TEXT, AS WRITTEN)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2048914/posts
Direct link to McCain’s editorial:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.op.ed/index.html
the full text of mccains comments are in the first post of the thread...
Thanks for those quotes. I don’t see any reason why McCain’s comments should be seen as “out of line” by the New York Times then. This doesn’t look good. Couple this with the Networks following Obama on his magical mystical tour, and the media bias oozes...
Nope. It's politically necessary and very smart, and he is actually correct.
The biggest problem with this administration's conduct of the war, and with this administration generally is that it has consistently failed to understand the politics of policy. Rove's understanding of electoral politics has been brilliant, but that's not all there is to politics, and Karen Hugh's policy politics were abysmal -- while she was still in the White House, as are Cheney's. Save your flames: I love Dick Cheney. I wish he were President. But politically this administration simply hasn't played the game well at all. Half of image is expectation. The Mission Accomplished spectacle was a huge mistake politically, especially combined with some of the remarks that could have been easily twisted into implying that the war was going to be easy.
If you want to argue that the Mission Accomplished spoke only to major combat operations, you're going to be talking to a wall: perception is everything in this game and to most of the people voting in November, Mission Accomplished means, "we're done, clear, and out of there." McCain has had his differences with this administration (at least with Rummy) over the war. It isn't an insult to the President (whom I also love) to highlight [some of] those differences.
Americans are tired of the Bush Administration, whether we like it or not. McCain's attempts to distance himself is necessary and smart. I wish Americans loved the President the way Republicans do. But they don't.
“Mission Accomplished” was correct. And I will go to my grave holding that opinion. The regime was removed, Saddam is dead, and his two sons are two.
Its the nation-building that’s had the problems. The banner should have read “Mission Accomplished - Phase 1”, and that would have shut the pie holes of the whiners.
McCain-Feingold assumes an unbiased press since it suppresses many other forms of publication prior to an election. I think someone should ask Senator McCain whether he still thinks it is wise to limit a candidates options for communicating positions to the people?!
Most excellent question!
Yes, you are every bit as stupid as conservatives have always said you are: You've actually given McCain's much maligned and ignored conservative base a reason to like him, and you've guaranteed that his editorial will get a much broader circulation than it ever would in your paper.
Stupid is as Stupid Does.
It doesn't get any stupider than the editorial staff at the NY Times. But we already knew this, even if you didn't.
mccain 1966 days as a POW
Perzactly!
John McCain should take out an ad saying that the NYT will never get his business again. I won’t hold my breath.
un-freakin-believable!
Below is a happy Sulzy before the 2004 elections, and before Pinch started the Slimes on its roll into the liberal cesspool of hell.
Hey Sulzy, Pinch happens to left wing maggot infested liberals in today's world. PINCH HAPPENS 24/7 AT THE NY SLIMES!
Sorry. Accurately stating the facts is not effective sarcasm.
Agreed. He’s been on his knees to them all these years and what good did it do him...same as for Hillary. Tough cookies.
WAS THAT PICTURE TAKEN AFTER HE GOT TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF IN A “ROUGH TRADE” GAY BAR?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.