(He must have been carrying the "football" that day...)
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...
McCain do you get it now? You should now realize that the Liberal media USED you very effectively as an axe against the despised GWB and Dick Cheney. The Liberal media has no more use for you, even if you try to pander to them with crap like CFR, Gang of 14, Club Gitmo, amnesty.
The Liberal NY Times is so in the tank for Barack Hussein Carter ObaMarx, that could care less about fairness.
That’s that fairness doctrine thingy isn’t it?
Weren’t they the same fools that ran with the General BETRAYus ads from the code pinko loons?
I’ve known the NYT was a rag since...
let’s see now...since I can remember ANYTHING!
McCain should just go around the NYT, print an editorial somewhere else with a lot of visibility and slam both Obama and the NYT in a two-fer.
But..but I've been told by some that Obama and McCain agree on most everything.
Good point - it would also be nice to see someone ask Shipley or some of the other NY Times hacks how much back-and-forth they had with Obama about the details of his op-ed..... since they are now on record insisting that it is ‘standard’ for them to force revisions with authors of op-ed pieces it would be helpful for some MSM types to think to ask whether that in fact happened with the Obambi piece???
Or did they, as I suspect, take Obambi’s tripe and print it verbatim without question or comment or requirement for revisions?
Thanks to Drudge.
The Times and the McCain Op-Ed By Kate Phillips
The Op-Ed section of The New York Times has decided not to publish an opinion piece submitted by Senator John McCain in response to one published last week by his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, on his plan for Iraq. The decision occurs against the backdrop of the candidates’ dueling visions on the war in Iraq and how to handle the war going forward, particularly whether there should be a timetable for withdrawal or “time horizons” as spoken by President Bush or a measured troop presence for the foreseeable future to maintain stability. Mr. Obama is on center stage today with his overseas trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, and Mr. McCain is hitting back from home with attacks that he has been right all along in achieving stability in the war zone through sustained support of President Bush’s troop buildup over this year. On Mr. McCain’s Op-Ed, Matt Drudge posted online what he said was the original submission by Mr. McCain. According to his post, the senator wrote about Mr. 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.” Tucker Bounds, a McCain campaign spokesman, issued this statement: “John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times.” Times officials said that the decision not to publish Mr. McCain’s submission should not be considered a total rejection of the article by the presumptive Republican nominee. Rather, David Shipley, editor of the Op-Ed page, kicked back the original version while offering suggestions for changes and revision. <{> Here’s Mr. Shipley’s email response on Friday to Michael Goldfarb, a member of the McCain team and frequent writer for the senator’s blog, McCainreport:
Dear Mr. Goldfarb,
Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay. I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the Op-Ed page. However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach. 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. 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. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan. I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. … Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.
Sincerely,
David Shipley
Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page and Op-Ed, issued this statement today about the process undergone by editors in reviewing submissions: It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission. We look forward to publishing Senator McCain’s views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the pesidential primaries. We take his views very seriously. (In full disclosure, I worked as the deputy Op-Ed editor under Mr. Shipley during the mid-to-latter part of 2004, and it was policy then not to publish direct responses to Op-Ed columns already in print. Very rarely would a direct counterpoint to an Op-Ed be published; more often the response would be directed to Letters to the Editor. But dueling candidate Op-Eds sometimes rise to a different level, when they go beyond back-and-forth or standard talking points that everyone is familiar with. That said, I should also say there is an enormous firewall between the editorial/Op-Ed side and the news operation. We on the news side had no input, nor intelligence, per se of Mr. McCain’s article, nor did we know that Mr. Shipley requested revisions. That holds true for all submissions to Op-Ed.)
LOL,whether you are for or against McCain, you just have to love the horns of the dilemma that the NYT finds themselves between.
If you print it, it makes Obama look like an idiot, and rightfully so because it IS very well written. If they print it, they get gored on that horn.
If they don’t print it, it gets bigger, and Bigger, and BIGGER, it starts getting printed everywhere, people start actually READING it, and Obama looks like an idiot AND the NYT looks like a bunch of REAL idiots, and biased ones at that, and you get impaled on that horn.
Hehe. I LOVE this. Watching this, you see the stupidity of liberals who think they have power, just to see them realize they cut off their fingers with the table saw they were trying to build a castle with.
I love it.
I have to say, I would prefer Monica.
And that ain’t saying much.
Well, at least she takes her own advice.
Gotta give her credit for that.
I don’t know. I think he knew exactly what he was doing...”Hey, Naomi, are you just happy to see me, or is that a (FILL IN THE BLANK) in your pocket?”
(He must have been carrying the "football" that day...)
I can't think of anything McCain could say or do that would be more damaging to Obama than simply shutting up and letting Obama talk. When Obama tries to show a personal side it's a fiasco, when he tries to showcase himself as a statesman it just highlights his lack of experience, when he tries to criticize policy he merely exposes how out of touch he is with mainstream America. Obama only does well when he slips into 'preacher mode' with a rehearsed script/speech and a choreographed crowd.
If I were McCain's campaign manager I'd be tempted to have McCain's mouth sutured shut and just let Obama self destruct.
Through the looking glass, eh? What a perfect metaphor for Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media.
Barry in Wonderland.
And they shut your newspaper down?!?
What makes you think McCain doesn’t get it?
What would you have him do?
Rewrite the essay?
He did the right thing here, he leaked it to Drudge.
The NYT is the loser in this fight.
Wow. The NYT really has jumped the shark, hasn’t it?
Outrageous.
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.