NY Times refuses John McCain editorial

[JaJae]

This is from Drudge

NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET

, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.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 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 NY Times ran an editorial last week from Obama. However, they have rejected McCain's editorial this week and recommends he revises it if he wants it to run in the paper! Under what terms do you think the NY Times would EVER reject an editorial from Obama? I can't think of any. They even went so far to say that McCain's editorial should "mirror" Obama's. In other words, McCain isn't free to express his views as he would like in the NY Times, however, Obama is welcome to and if McCain wants to express himself in their paper he has to "mirror" Obama's editorial.

Here is McCain's editorial for those interested in reading it.

Originally Posted by John McCain

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

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."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But 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. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

[7960]

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."

that was my favorite part..........assholes

[thewise1]

It's their newspaper, they can do what they want IMO.

Also, he's just spouting off the usual crap that doesn't answer anything.

'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.'

Yeah well how about you define winning, since all you guys talk about is how we'll win, but you never define your win.

[Scrum]

I'm sure there are plenty of papers out there that would be willing to publish his editorial.

[7960]

Originally Posted by thewise1

It's their newspaper, they can do what they want IMO.

not while also claiming to be impartial.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I'm sure there are plenty of papers out there that would be willing to publish his editorial.

I'm sure there are newspapers willing to publish it. But it's telling of the NY Times to regulate McCain's editorial and freely publish Obama's. Imagine if the Wall Street Journal (another respected NY newspaper) told Obama they wouldn't publish his editorial unless it addresses shortcomings of his Iraq plan and "mirrors" the article they published from McCain. I can't imagine the media outrage that would ensue from that. Yet the NY Times does it and we're all just kinda used to it.

[kinggovernor]

This is the same paper that wrote about that had the bogus story about an "affair" McCain supposedly had. This current conduct is not surprising.

[Phantom]

This publicity beats any editorial printed. Seems McCain comes out ahead by being denied.

[JaJae]

McCain's campaign speaks out:

McCain campaign Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker said the two candidates “have very different world views” about Iraq and the campaign wanted an opportunity to state its candidate’s view.

“We have elections in this country, not coronations and it’s unfortunate that The New York Times wouldn’t allow their readers to hear from John McCain and make their own judgment,” Hazelbaker told FOX News.

“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,” added McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

The New York Times has not yet responded to requests for comment about its editorial decision-making. Obama’s op-ed ran on July 14, days before the Democratic presidential candidate departed for Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a congressional delegation that received coverage from all three broadcast networks’ news services. It is the first time the networks have traveled overseas with a candidate.

Hazelbaker said that it’s not her job to police the media coverage, but the campaign would have liked to have “made our case directly to the voters.”

“We think the American voter is smart enough to make the call on their own,” she said.

McCain Campaign: New York Times Blocked Op-Ed Response to Obama - America’s Election HQ

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Phantom

This publicity beats any editorial printed. Seems McCain comes out ahead by being denied.

the last time this happened, it got right wing radio on his side for a little bit. This should help rally up the base some.

[kinggovernor]

also the change in strategy that Gen. Paterus has ushered in cannot be overstated in its importance.

I would know, my unit was one of the prototypes

[6SpeedTA95]

McCain got screwed on that deal. The official reason the paper gave for not publishing it, was it was "old news" or at least thats what they were saying when it came across google this morning. THey wanted to move on and focus on the topic of the day, which happens to be whatever obama wants it to be. Convenient.

[Donkey®]

McCain: The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year


I just found this funny for some reason.



As far as them "rejecting" McCain's rebuttal...so what? It's now more widespread than it would have been just being published in the Times. Bunch of crybabies. State-Run newspapers only work in Iran. (Meaning, the Time may print whatever they choose to.)

Also, I am not seeing evidence the NYT didn't ask Obama to edit his submission prior to publishing it.

[Smull]

The NYT should be allowed to only publish Obama's take, just as fox news is allowed to pull all the BS they do. But they can't expect me to take them seriously as a fair and non-partisan source if they continue with this crap.

As for the essay itself, I think McCain makes a very good point. The Surge has been great for Iraq, and he rightly points out that Obama would have withdrawn a year and a half ago and left Iraq in much much worse shape than we can now. I'm also happy about McCain using 4 years instead of 100 years as when he would like to see U.S. troops out of Iraq. I would like to see him concretly adress the 56 permanent bases that we want to build in Iraq.

I find it interesting and encouraging that the two canidates positions on Iraq seem to be converging.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Smull

I find it interesting and encouraging that the two canidates positions on Iraq seem to be converging.

its because the Surge has worked which has forced Obama to change his position

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Also, I am not seeing evidence the NYT didn't ask Obama to edit his submission prior to publishing it.

i don't see evidence they didn't ask him to edit references to UFOs and anal probes either!

[7960]

Originally Posted by Smull

The NYT should be allowed to only publish Obama's take, just as fox news is allowed to pull all the BS they do. But they can't expect me to take them seriously as a fair and non-partisan source if they continue with this crap.

that is EXACTLY the point.

sure they're private and are allowed to publish what they want....nobody is saying otherwise.

what we're saying is they're assholes for doing it but continuing to say they "want to report on both sides of the campaign." they don't.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

i don't see evidence they didn't ask him to edit references to UFOs and anal probes either!

What? I see people contending that the NYT didn't have Obama edit his at all. I would like to see the evidence they have to make that remark...

[DosEquis]

is this a case where the free market is a bitch when it doesn't go your way for mr. mccain?