JohnRgt

NYT Rejects McCain Counter-Editorial

4 posts in this topic

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.
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.'
(Emphasis added)
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."

For the original draft, click here, then scan about a third of the way down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.]

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.'

I wonder if the ex-Clinton administration a.k.a. New York Times also told Obama what he had to write. B) There's nothing like a campaign telling its opponent what he has to say in his own statements while the whole msm spins whatever Obama wants. I, too, would like to know more about what McCain defines as victory, but whatever he says can be expected to be so general that it doesn't say anything. He can't reveal in advance a detailed military strategy and doesn't seem capable, or willing in the middle of an election campaign, of giving a clear philosophical statement. At least he has some notion of victory in contrast to giving in and abandoning the entire battlefield except for an undefended US territory, i.e., here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if the ex-Clinton administration a.k.a. New York Times also told Obama what he had to write. B) There's nothing like a campaign telling its opponent what he has to say in his own statements while the whole msm spins whatever Obama wants. I, too, would like to know more about what McCain defines as victory, but whatever he says can be expected to be so general that it doesn't say anything. He can't reveal in advance a detailed military strategy and doesn't seem capable, or willing in the middle of an election campaign, of giving a clear philosophical statement. At least he has some notion of victory in contrast to giving in and abandoning the entire battlefield except for an undefended US territory, i.e., here.

Actually, the New York Times did McCain a big favor. He gets all the positive publicity in GOP circles of having been "rejected" by the mainstream media, and more people will probably wind up reading the piece on Drudge or hearing about it on Fox and CNN than would have read it in the New York Times. It wouldn't surprise me if McCain's people wrote this thing with the objective of getting it rejected by the NYT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, the New York Times did McCain a big favor. He gets all the positive publicity in GOP circles of having been "rejected" by the mainstream media, and more people will probably wind up reading the piece on Drudge or hearing about it on Fox and CNN than would have read it in the New York Times. It wouldn't surprise me if McCain's people wrote this thing with the objective of getting it rejected by the NYT.
I agree with your assessment of the value of a NYT rejection, with the additional bonus that it further discredits the NYT as a disinterested source of information, except for the true believer Leftists who continue to subscribe, keeping it in business.

Your "conspiracy theory" about McCain's People gives both them and the NYT far too much credit. They will certainly use it to their advantage and offering it to Drudge would have to have been a deliberate act, but more of a fortuitous reaction to an unexpected opportunity to strike back and make internet hay of a really stupid, mindless decision by the editors.

But such suppositions aren't terribly helpful and McCain isn't a principled opposition to Obama. He is a "patriot," which, to him, means Duty to God and Country, from everything he's written and said to-date. Even the concept of Winning in Iraq is problematic, since Bush has made sure that an American-based constitution and separation of church and state would not be part of that country's government. It is essentially a Shari'a government in detente b/w Shi'ite and Sunni interests with a grudging nod to the Kurds. If the U.S. weren't there now, Iran would have annexed it already. The appropriate model would have been our complete victory over Japan and our provision of a constitution and complete disarming of their military. But we defaulted and let the U.N. - that bastion of freedom - take over the writing of the constitution. I'm not confident that Iraq will end up an ally to the U.S., nor that it will survive.

Obama and McCain are deck chairs on the Titanic. One happens to float slightly better, but the ship is still sinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites