Posted on 07/21/2008 6:15:11 PM PDT by edzo4
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. 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
“Don’t hope for more energy, vote for it.”
Only college professors, LOL.
Cablers Cover Rejected McCain Op-Ed (Cable News Outlets cover NY Times rejection ) Videos
Cable News is on the story...See link at post #43.
I wonder if comrade Shipley "kicked back" Obama's version for changes and revisions? Oh, what am I thinking? That would be like Shipley telling Moses to rewrite the Torah.
I've heard of newspapers contacting citizens who write letters to the editor for revisions in order to meet publishing standards, but McCain is a Presidential candidate. Figures that Mr. Shifty is an ex-Clinton operative.
Yeah. It was a classic case of bilateral bait and switch.
She thought she was marrying a man and found out it was a woman.
He thought he was marrying a woman and found out it was a man.
After they both divorced, they realized what a mistake that was, because they both actually wanted what they got in matrimony.
Another pathetic example of only telling part of the story.
We are going to see bias in this election year like no other. The MSM will cross the line in their obvious bias, they’ll do anything to get a liberal Dem elected, but puttng a multicultural idol in will cause zealous actions.
They've taken over one party, and cannot be ignored by the other party. Both the national socialists (NAZIs) and the international socialists (Commies) believed that one of the first steps in taking over a country was to take over the instruments of mass indoctrination. That would include the press, TV and movies. How many anti-communist movies and television episodes have you seen? There are very few, while it is not hard to find anti-American or anti-capitalist movies and TV episodes. Was Leno “asked” to step down because he was insufficiently liberal? I don't know, but I think the question is worth asking.
That’s about right, besides being darkly humorous.
David Shipley had many requirements for McCain. The requirements are made by a liberal, Shipley, to benefit a liberal, Barack Hussein Obama. Democrats always have time to insist on self-serving ground rules and procedures. They mean to win at any cost. They will sacrifice fair play, consistency, and truth without any hesitation.
“to the minders and P/C EDITORS AT Free Republic.... Guess which finger is pointed in your direction?”
Where did that come from?
The article under discussion is from the New York Times, not FreeRepublic. The McCain response was NOT published by the New York Times. It WAS published at FreeRepublic. The New York Times is very different from FreeRepublic. They may look the same to you, but they are really very different.
Here's the real reason the Times is "spiking" McCain's editorial -- they want to keep kicking "back the original version while offering suggestions for changes and revision" long enough for the Obamessiah to finish his world adulation tour.
“Leave a comment on the NY Times page...if they allow it. I just tried.”
Yes, they are printing them. Just don’t use profanity. There is about a 20 minute delay in printing them.
Didn’t learn until yesterday after this posting that they’re
now divorced .. but still, birds of a feather.
I agree with you completely. It’s gone way too far. I don’t know how we allowed it to get so out of hand. They are crucifying McCain and it’s to the point that I avoid even watching it. I can imagine how differently they will cover the two conventions.
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.