New York Times Rejects McCain Rebuttal To Obama Op-Ed

The New York Times has rejected an op-ed penned by Senator John McCain in response to an op-ed by Senator Barack Obama published on July 14, members of the campaign tell the Drudge Report.

New York Times op-ed editor David Shipley wrote in an email to McCain's staff, "It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece." But, he continued, "I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written."

Shipley further explained in an email to the Drudge Report, saying:

"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....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."

In his July 14 op-ed, Obama laid out his plan for Iraq. McCain's proposed op-ed is available in full here.

This is but the latest turn in the John McCain vs. the New York Times story, which exploded in February after the Times published a story implying an illicit affair between McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman. In May, McCain rejected the New York Times' request for his medical records, allowing only two print newspapers — the Washington Post and the Arizona Republic — to see his records.

Comments

[JustAProgressive]

The neocons conflated policy and politics for seven years, and the mainstream press was silently complicit. The NYT is to be commended for establishing standards. I think McCain can do better in articulating policy and stripping out egregious political jabs.

On the other hand, if he can't do so because either he's sold out to the neocons or he's too old, he deserves his fate. And the campaign will not become a debate on the issues, but a one-sided presentation of Obama's plans for his first administration - but only to the degree necessary to win in November.

[Okieborn]

I think the New York Times did Mccain=Bush a big favor.
They simply kept him from another gaffe another reason to believe this guy needs "HELP" !!

[toby25]

There is a VERY obvious love affair going on with the press and Obama. This guy is a complete fraud. Now he falsely claims he is on the banking commitee.....he is on both sides of the Iraq issue...FISA....abortion....gun control....campaign finance .....etc etc etc. All being ignored by the media. Hey, but he hit a 3 point jump shot..that count for something right??

[Mattjoe]

You"ll win the war we started whenever the administration is damn well ready to decide you"ve not lost it.

Sorry, in all the excitement and joy over the term "win" I forgot what the point was again?

[RTIII]

"As they stand up, we'll stand down" - except that we aren't.

"If they ask us to leave, we'll leave" - except that we aren't / haven't.
.

[bbbbmer]

McCain's piece was probably written and edited by Karl Rove, and researched in GWBush's new 'liberry'...

[TommyHollis]

It is McCain's op-ed. His words, his thoughts. Good or bad.
Not Shipley's or Sulzberger's or whoever is working the desk there..
What a crock.

[BoVandy]

and the editors of the Op-Ed section can decide whether or not his words and thoughts are worthy of being published

[MPCarr]

There were 17 UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein. So what was the point of those?

[nyc103]

The differences between the two senators' op-ed pieces are quite striking:

In 13 paragraphs, Obama mentions McCain a total of three times -- all by way of comparison. For example, "Unlike Senator McCain" sets up two of the references (followed by an I WOULD or I DID). The third, which is the only direct charge leveled against McCain, begins with, "Instead of seizing the moment." The rest of the piece presents a fairly straight-forward outline of what voters can expect from the candidate as commander-in-chief.

By my count, McCain's 12 paragraphs mention Obama nine times by title and another 20 times as he or his (e.g., his plan, his trip). Along with this seeming focus on his opponent rather than the war, McCain's remarks tend to be more combative than comparative. Examples include: "Sen. Obama is misleading," "... emulating the worst mistake of Bush," "he mangles the evidence," and "seems to have learned nothing." In what's left of the piece, McCain drums a familiar, stay-the-course theme -- in the direst of terms.

The Times, in my view, exercised correct editorial judgement in inviting McCain to revise his draft. No good can ever come of political attack ads running on op-ed pages for free.

[exflatlander]

I'm so sick of McCain's only point in staying in Iraq is "victory". When will his followers figure out that "victory" can't be "won" when you are imposing your will on a sovereign nation. Besides, Shrub already declared victory in 2003; he just fdidn't get the troops out of there when he could have. That's what a "victory" is: win and get out. But Shrub wanted the war to last long enough to get himself re-elected - to hell with the troops who would die in the interim, who are still dying.

IF anybody sounds naive, it's McCain. Victory, indeed! It isn't a football game, senator!

[ProgressiveBum]

McCain doesn't have a plan for Iraq. Platitudes are not fit to print, that's all. Here's my suggestion to the McCain campaign: Grow a brain and think creatively; that way could be considered a "race".

[smag]

I am new to the site and admittedly a Conservative. Some of my friends warned me against reading this site however if we can't have a respectful exchange of ideas then this country is doomed. I think that Bush, Cheney and a great many of the GOP and Dems in Congress are a disgrace for being too concerned about job security and not doing their job. As a Retired Military man it concerns me that we don't seem to get past the labels of Conservative or Liberal/Moderate when we evaluate ideas. This is not a game but an effort to discuss what is best for the country as a whole. If this is a place where different ideas are welcome, I am sure you will let me know.

[exflatlander]

Smag, you're welcome as far as this liberal is concerned. I like your respectful and positive engagement. Alas, you'll see too many "trolls" (conservatives who post rude, name-calling, distortions and outright lies) here. That provokes the worst among us liberals to be just as rude. I'd like to think that you'll maintain the tone used in this post and that you'll get equally thoughtful and respectful replies.

[omahkohkiaayo]

I agree with Smag here although I am not of either the liberal or conservative persuasion.

Can we agree Smag, as fellow veterans, (in my case U.S. Army 1963-66) that one of the lowest life forms is the Chickenhawk? A Chickenhawk is not simply one who has not served in the military, but one who promotes wars and/or military service that they and their children never served in when they had a chance and even took active steps to avoid: Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, Dick Cheney et al. And I also include women with big mouths on war and military service like Laura Ingraham et al.

Next, I believe that you are correct that the Dems have acted spinelessly in enabling an illegal war (just as there is no need to cover-up what is clean only what is dirty, so it is that lies, cherrypicked intel and phony pretexts are not necessary for just and defensive wars, only illegal, aggressive and preemptive ones). and they have acted spinelessly calling an illegal war--a crime--a "mistake" which is like calling rape sex.

Right now, there is a plurality of voters calling themselves independents because of the hypocrisy and duplicity of both the Dems and Republicans. Congress, with a present deserved approval rating of around 9% has a lower approval rating than Osama bin Ladin.

We need to have a serious dialogue, and simply seek truth from provable facts and solid reasoning.

[philipwitak]

just a quick observation.

back before bush and clinton and bush and reagan, it used to be that democrats and republicans were, for the most part, honorable adversaries. but now, all too often, they seem to have colluded in some sort of sorry-ass 'good-cop/bad-cop' routine which almost always fails to serve the best interests of the american people.

there has gotta be a better way.

[Pacer22]

Well stated. But your friends are wrong. We need to be open to the undistorted facts and not bury our heads in party ideologies or loyalties. For the conservative "me the "Gang of 7" ruined the Republican brand. They chest-bumped about leading the "Republican Revolution". The revolution was all about turning our country over to Big Money, while they harvested staggering financial benefits. The more you investigate WHAT really has been going on Washington D.C., the more you will be committed to change. As a military man you are a patriot. And love of country will draw you towards rescuing your country from entering a New Gilded Age.

Weigh in with your comments.Your perspective is needed, and don't be offended by the responses from some zealots. What the Bush administration has done to this country, and to the Constitution, gets many of us riled up.

[WasteNJ]

Bravo NYT. They aren't above printing some right wing garbage on their editorial pages, so the liberal media argument is bunk. McCain wants free press to try to defame Obama without actually saying anything of substance. This is his latest tactic, attack attack attack, lie lie lie. Sound familiar?

We have suffered through 8 years of right leaning talking points presented as news, liberal views shelved and liberal news people canned, we have lived through media hyped Swift-Boat nonsense, Iraq war propaganda and anti-environment propaganda, Patriot Act propaganda and domestic spying propaganda all filtered through the lens of a corporate media disinterested in fairness.

Who are they to complain?

[Artesian]

The New York Times will only accept the op-ed by Senator John McCain until he knows how to use the computer and able to send it electronically without the help of his wife!

.

[Talwar]

Maybe he can get some help from W and "the Google"!

[RUNAWAYCHILD]

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR MCCAIN NOW THAT OBAMA HAS SHOWN THAT HE IS PRESIDENTIAL AND KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON-MCCAIN AND ALL THE REPUBLICANS & OTHERS WHO CHOOSE TO VOTE FOR HIM, SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF MCCAIN, OBAMA HAS MORE KNOWLEDGE IN HIS PINKY THAT ONLY MCCAIN WISHES FOR.
MCCAIN PEOPLE WHO ARE SITTING BEHIND HIM DURING HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH HIS FRIENDS LOOK MORE TIRED THAN MCCAIN AND CINDY-THEY ARE ALL EMOTIONALLY DEAD, JUST WATCH THE NEXT TIME.
GO OBAMA AND HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN RIGHT FOR AMERICAN AND THOSE ABROAD, THOSE ABROAD ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH HIS COLOR BUT THAT HE IS ABLE TO HAVE INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION ABOUT ALL AFFAIRS THE PRESIDEN WILL ENCOUNTER, HE HAS SURROUNDED HIMSELF WITH EDUCATED FOLKS WHOM HE SHARES HIS THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS-SORRY FOLKS BUT HE HAS BEEN RIGHT FROM THE BEGINING AND YOU NEED TO VOTE FOR HIM-NOT MCCAIN-OBAMA ONLY NEEDS ONE MEETING WITH THE GENERAL TO UNDERSTAND, MCCAIN NEEDS TO HAVE MANY CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE HE IS NOT LISTENING. PAWLENTY IS GOOD FOR MINNESOTA BUT NOT FOR V.P. THE SURGE IS JUST A JOKE, JUST WORDS PEOPLE. GET OVER THE ADJECTIVES THAT ARE BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ WORDS.
MCCAIN IS RUNNING FOR ALL HE CAN GET BEFORE OBAMA GETS BACK AND COMES TO COLORADO FOR THE GREAT INVESCO TURNOUT.IF WE LEAVE IRAQ & THEY CAN'T HANDLE THEIR COUNTRY THIS IS THEIR PROBLEM NOT OURS-BESIDES HALLIBURTON IS THERE AND CAN HELP WITH ALL HIS MONEY-

[66rock]

Give our eyes a break,please, and take off your Caps.
thank you

[exflatlander]

And edit. I make typos, but this isn't even coherent. What I can glean, though, is rightful thinking.

[Shamroker17]

Let's see McCain say what his views are, rather than what they are not. The Times flexed their editorial muscles, but not without cause...McCain's article is more useful lining a birdcage than it is arguing his point.

[FarOutFish]

The New York Times motto really is, "All the news that fits, we print"

[Bystander]

I think Jason Blair would feel quite at home at the NYT now...birds of a feather!

[saibotchilizm]

Voting McCain means voting for at least four more years in Iraq. Simple as that.

http://www.saibotchilizm.org

[shuppy]

Your comment sounds like you think with something other than your brain. As a veteran and an adult I know what it is to finish a job. The one that has been right about Iraq is John McCain and he knows how to get us out of Iraq a heck of a lot better than a former social worker-turned civil rights attorney, turned State Senator turned US Senator and Presidential candidate. No one wants us out more than I do and the best man to do that is one who understands it.

[exflatlander]

Uh, have you LISTENED to him? He went from 100 years in Iraq to well, maybe 2013 - just enough time to get himself re-elected, should this country be stupid enough to vote him in. You forget that the entire war is based on lies (called ironically, "faulty intelligence" by the Bushies). You don't correct a mistake by continuing to make it, and Iraq was a biggie.

Aren't you curious as to why we attacked the only secular government which WASN'T involved in 9-11, and pointedly ignored the monarchy which is in fact harboring terrorists:Saudi Arabia. Oh, I forget. The king is an old Bush family friend - until he told W to get lost. Meanwhile, suitcases of petro-dollars are arriving in Afghanistan from the Saudis for the Taliban resurgence. I'm surprised a wise military man like yourself isn't concerned about "losing" that war. Meanwhile, our economy is going down the tubes while we pour the billions into Iraq.

By the way, that "social worker" was the top of his class at Harvard Law School and hasn't had difficulty keeping Sunni and Shiite straight. He was also the candidate that opposed this bogus attack on Iraq in the first place. There would be over 4,000 of your fellow GIs still alive and with their families today if there had been people like him in Congress in 2002-2003 when they were all running around like Chicken Little about imaginary WMDs.