Jul

NYT’s Rejects McCains Rebuttal To Obama’s Editorial

Posted by: Curt @ 11:11 am in Barack Obama, MSM Bias

Visited 883 times, 1 so far today

The media in the tank for Obama? Nawwwwww:

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…

[Former Clinton aide and current NYT op-ed editor David] Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial [in an e-mail to McCain’s staff on Friday].

‘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.’

Here is the part in which the NYT’s say he does not define victory good enough for them: (from the Drudge link above)

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.

Let me see….when the Iraqi’s skills in logisitics, C&C, and other supply matters get up to par, when their air force gets up to par, and when the Iraqi’s can defend their country without help…then we can declare victory.

Pretty straightforward to me but not the NYT’s.

I tell you what, McCain should offer to articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines victory in Iraq if Obama will agree to articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines defeat in Iraq. Shouldn’t be hard, he’s declared defeat plenty in times past.

Obama’s detailed plans? He detailed the number of Brigades he would withdraw. Thats about it. The rest of it was the same ole’ crap we heard from him before.

But the NYT’s, as the gatekeeper of the story they want to spin has decided only one side can be heard while printing pieces like What Hamas Wants and allowing a terrorist to write his own editorial.

Nope, the MSM is definitely NOT in the tank for Obama….

Sigh…

More here.

Print This Post

This entry was posted on Monday, July 21st, 2008 at 11:11 am and is filed under Barack Obama, MSM Bias. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

19 comments so far

The Other Ed

I’d reject this for publication if I ran a newspaper also. It’s pedantic, written at a 8th grade level and since there is no equal time provision requiring the NYT to print a response, it should at least be interesting and say something of value.

Sending it back asking that it be rewritten was charitable.

July 21st, 2008 at 11:37 am

Fit fit

It’s not fair.

They’re asking him to do the impossible, which is to give a definition of victory in Iraq.

That’s not technically impossible, they just always wanted to decide the terms of victory after it has happened, as in “Look everybody, we’re getting kicked out because we won!”

July 21st, 2008 at 11:38 am

John Ryan

We can’t leave because things are going so well

July 21st, 2008 at 11:45 am

Fit fit

No, there’s a conditions-based general time horizon for leaving in 16+/- months.

Unless there’s a flair up on the Iraqi/Pakistan border…

July 21st, 2008 at 11:47 am

Ralph Kramden

“Written at an eighth grade level” is not a bad thing. Indeed, that might be the ideal level for campaign-related writing.

That said, though, the NYT is under no obligation to act as a conduit for McCain press releases. After all, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

July 21st, 2008 at 1:02 pm

MataHarley

…and since there is no equal time provision requiring the NYT to print a response, it should at least be interesting and say something of value.

Naw… but elect BHO and watch how fast the DNC three branches of power try to resurrect (and uphold) the Fairness Doctrine. The NYTs only has this freedom to reject opposing viewpoints because the GOP stood up against the DNC and their cries for “equal time”. Ironic, don’t you think Mr. Ed?

There’s nothing particularly “8th grade” about the two lifted/pasted paragraphs you chose to read, and pronounce judment on it’s entirety. Nice going… Truly fair and open minded of you. Whatsamatter… need some soaring rhetoric that makes everyone feel good but says nothing? And considering that the average reading level of the US is right about 8th grade, I’d say some direct language to the masses is appropriate.

So if you’d like to parse language and sentence structure… your’s is too long, punctuated incorrectly, and fragmented.

Fit, INRE your ” “Look everybody, we’re getting kicked out because we won!” That is not a definition of victory, but it is a result of victory. The day they are weaned from US aid (and not fall to jihad elements, but keep their elected govt intact) is most definitely a victory for both Iraq, and for OIF. Tho you are being satirical, it is nothing short of an exhibition of success.

July 21st, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Fred

The NY Times should have published McSame’s editorial. Then the American people would have something to put in the birdcage, or to clean up with after the dog has had an accident.

A shitty editorial deserves a shitty destination.

July 21st, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Mike's America

“Written at an eighth grade level”

You’re right Other Ed. If McCain had wanted to reach Democrat voters he should have lowered his sights to at least 6th grade level.

Clear as a bell it is that the NYTimes and fellow Obama “news” organizations are in the tank for their savior.

What a shame they have discarded their constitutionally protected role of informing the American voter for the role of propping up an inexperienced, ill-informed Chicago political hack.

I challenge those who say the “Fairness Doctrine” be applied to Talk Radio apply the same standard to the “mainstream” print and broadcast media.

July 21st, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Tony

“Written at an eighth grade level”

Is a goal for good tech writers, but I guess it doesn’t fit the NYT and other snobbish liberals who don’t bother to read anything other than Obama’s talking points. This was an editorial rebuttal, so he can say anything he wants, in any way he wants to. Of course, its better that it wasn’t published, since it shows how in the tank the liberal media is.

I wonder when the media, and the anti-war crowd will figure out that Obama has asked for a surge in Afghanistan. Also, when will the media ask him why he didn’t stop in Pakistan if he thought that the problems in Afghanistan were so serious, or was he afraid to do that because he previously suggested we should invade Pakistan to get OBL?

July 21st, 2008 at 3:38 pm

MataHarley

Authored a post about your last sentence just a few hours ago, Tony… funny that you mention that. (The Where Obama Fears to Tread…. one)

However I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for some fluorescent lightbulb bright media to ask him about that. They are as clueless as he is.

July 21st, 2008 at 5:08 pm

papa_joe

Um, er, Mr Fit fit,
Unlikely that there’ll be a flare-up of violence on Iraq’s border with Pakistan. In fact I’d say it’s impossible.

Iraq borders Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and has a small coastline on the Persian Gulf . To get to Pakistan, you’d need to go through Iran from the West border to the east, about 1300 km travel.

But, by all means, comment even if you are unaware of the lay of the land.

Thanks
Papa joe
minneapolis usa

July 21st, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Fit fit

Why not? McCain does…

LINK

July 21st, 2008 at 6:05 pm

bbartlog

Maybe Fit Fit was thinking of McCain’s confusion regarding a border between Iraq and Pakistan. Or maybe it’s just a case of great minds thinking alike.

July 21st, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Fit fit

Back to this faux Times outrage…

The NYT has published over seven of McCain’s OpEd pieces. They said they would publish this one with a rewrite. Conservative commentator Ben Stein (a regular NYT contributor) just agreed this is not an unusual request from the editors.

July 21st, 2008 at 6:41 pm

wordsmith

Conservative commentator Ben Stein (a regular NYT contributor) just agreed this is not an unusual request from the editors.

But the substance of the request does sound ~~unusual~~ Obama-esque in “shaping the battlespace”:

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.

“Compelling Iraqis to cooperate”?! Iraqis have been bleeding and dying to move things forward. “Timetables”?! Sounds straight out of the Obama-mindset. And how on earth has Senator Obama laid out a “plan for achieving ~~victory~~ defeat” in “concrete terms”?

Mark Levin’s website asks: “How to get your op-ed in the NYT”

and answers back

Label it ‘U.S Government: Top Secret’”

July 22nd, 2008 at 3:59 am

wordsmith

The Other Ed writes on the op-ed:

I’d reject this for publication if I ran a newspaper also. It’s pedantic, written at a 8th grade level and since there is no equal time provision requiring the NYT to print a response, it should at least be interesting and say something of value.

It’s coming from a rival presidential candidate. That in itself should qualify for “interesting” and “something of value”, even if it were badly written, because it reflects back upon the candidate. After all, I read Obama’s op-ed as lame, and yet that didn’t stop the NYT from embarrassing the good Senator from Illinois by printing it anyway.

July 22nd, 2008 at 4:08 am

Edward Cropper

check my blog for latest reaction by Obama regarding NYT censorship.

July 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm