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...
The only honest thing the NYT can do now is admit that their in Obama’s camp and have no interest whatsoever in being or even appearing to be fair. That I could respect. The hypocrisy of pretending not to have completely committed to Obama is what I find so disgusting.
I don’t know about your assessment of McCain.
Obama seems to be hurting himself in spite of the publicity and the news media who are hurting themselves too.
There is something over the top about the media’s embrace of Obama that if becoming more startling daily and I think it is noticed more without McCain chiming in.
And Obama has lost a significant lead all the while McCain says little. It is quite amazing but I think Obama will self destruct, the more he says, the worse he looks. And the media are too.
I could be wrong but it feels like a strategy.
I just sent the NYT this link:
Haha.
It doesn't really pretend anymore.
Why don't they just be honest and rename it the "DEMOCRATIC PARTY TIMES"???
It is exactly that. It is the Democratic Party Times. No pretense about it. That isn't the news. The news is that people are still surprised by it and after decades of kvetching about it the GOP still hasn't developed their own press organs.
Until we solve this problem, until we get control of the information war, good luck ever electing a conservative majority, or even a GOP majority.
My thoughts exactly. Is that his new love interest??
Yet another ‘in kind’ contribution to the Democrat Obama Campaign by the ‘Red Rag Hag’ of the Fourth Estate, Fifth Columnists of the New York Times.
You're way too polite compared to what my first thought was. It's an uphill battle against these $%^&*.
Ahh so candidates need to seek NYTs approval before having an opinion?
This is about the bias of NYT and nothing else.
How dare you disagree with the Liberal Messiah! The NYT editorial pages are only for praise of His Holiness.
DISCLAIMER: The above is sarcasm.
The New York Times editorial board obviously knows the paper is going down in flames. Why else would they so blatantly lobby for the job of heading up the “fairness doctrine” bureaucracy under President Obama?
He is at fault then for not communicating clearly his directive as an editor and with such a hot political potato and he having a previous career with the Clinton administration, he is an idiot if he meant otherwise. I think at best he was purposely ambiguous and at worse he said exactly what he means. Truth be told either way he is a horrible editor of others' content-- look at where it got him and the paper.
McCain's content will be out there for even more to see now and the NYT gets yet another stain. The man is a louse.
In other words, let us write this editorial for you Sen. McCain.
This is dangerous ground our nation is standing on: Obama now controls the media...... totalitarian tactics.
Now Now Now, let McCain buy his own newspaper, this one sold out a long time ago.
Looks as though Hillary took her advice.
Looks as though Hillary took her advice.
First thing I did was reprint it on my blog, RochesterConservative.com:
John McCain’s Editorial that was Rejected by the New York Slimes
We don't need the lefty MSM anymore!
Reading that bio, I give it a 85% chance she got it on with Bill.
Mr. Shipley it would be terrific to have a newspaper that reports the news in an unbiased manner, I'm not going to be able to read that piece of crap you call a paper as currently written, I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'
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.