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

[mergina]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

[Kahni]

hey merg ! Wake up ! Or at least take your finger off the dam key.

[sherylsworld]

On ABC's good morning america, McCain was interviewed confusing Iraq & Afghanistan as bordering countries. Fire your geography teacher McCain.

A swing state voter.....

[jwatso7]

Then I guess he'll never have an Op Ed in the Times, because you can't write about what you don't have.

[SwingVoter]

May be it was payback...

[sanywhere]

or maybe it was not written well, like they said.

[Kahni]

It's not. He's done better many times. He sure can't speak to a crowd but his posts are usually not bad. This one sucks.

[yathink]

Or maybe it wasn't written by McCain and they knew it.

[NotMcCain]

Read it at Drudge.

It was definitely NOT op-ed material.

[RedWolverine]

No, I'm sorry. When Yassir Arafat gets to post in the New York Times, the Republican Nominee gets to respond to Barack Obama.

Also, assuming arguendo that McCain's entire piece was filled with lies, and misstatements, imagine if he said the sky was green and there are 57 states. When the Democratic candidate gets to post in the Times, McCain should be given that same opportunity without the Times making a prior restraint on speech.

[CrankyCurmudgeon]

Ha Ha . . . that's a good one.

[echo]

There are 51 states, including Iraq.

[Kahni]

He does get to respond. He just was asked to meet their standards for relevance. They have certainly done that before and to much higher placed politicians than either Mc or O.

Of course, it's a free country. So if he would rather take your approach and feels that is a superior tactic, he is free to do so... Let's wait and see what Mc decides to do.

[mamacat]

As the NYT editor said, they have published McCain pieces 7 times so far. Since this piece contained factual errors, if not out-and-out lies, they decided not to publish. They want McCain to rise to the same standards that they are able to hold Obama to.

Whether published or not, all the compaints about not publishing have brought even more embarrasment to the presumptive GOP nominee. Not only is he out of touch with what is going on inside and outside of our borders, he misquoted or lied about easily fact-checked statements by Maliki.

Once again, McCain has shot himself in the foot. He might get better polling numbers if he took a vacation until the election. Every time he tries to say something intelligent, he embarasses himself and the whole nation.

[Bub]

Republicans are shocked that a newspaper applied journalistic standards.

Apparently, you just can't throw any old slop out there and expect it to be published.

There was bound to come a time when the New York Times would want to distinguish itself from Murdock style media-ocracy.

[MourningDude]

In other words, they want Big Mac to use all precious space and words re-hashing blatantly obvious facts about Iraq.

If Barry says "The surge isn't working", that's unassailable and factually rigorous. But if Big Mac says "The surge is working" that's an unsubstantiated opinion?

Give me a break. The facts in Iraq are common knowledge.

In 2007 Barry stated that the surge would not reduce sectarian violence. Barry said it would do the opposite and actually increase sectarian violence. Now Barry has changed his tune as says "It was never about sectarian violence in the first place". Okay, if so then why was Barry talking about sectarian violence last year when he was discussing the surge? And why didn't the NYT ask him to clarify that point?

The double standard is so obvious that most here don't even argue that their decision was fair and justified. Most just say "that's their right as a business" blah, blah blah.

[RedKnuckles]

I heard that the problem with his piece is that, much as he does on the campaign trail, he talks about the "surge is working" and that "we're winning" but doesn't define specifically what the criteria are for these statements. They were not going to let him simply do a political rebuttal without thoughtful discussion.

[yathink]

Nobody can "win" an occupation. It hasn't been a war since 2003.

[SaulGoode]

Another taste of fa scism if O bammy wins

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

Can you explain your thoughts a little clearer please?

What you said doesn't make any sense.

None. Whatsoever.

[Bettysdad]

You can't define fascism.

[Brothaman2k]

This is SOOOOOOOOO­OOOOOOOOOO­OOOOOOOOOO­OOO Funny!!!lol

Everyone calls McCain "Experienced" because of his age, but he just got schooled like a jr. high student!

"Mr. McCain... I was thoroughly disappointed with your effort on your paper young man. I know you can do better. That's why I'm going to be nice and give the weekend to re-write it. And remember, this counts for half your grade so I'd better see some real effort this time if you don't want to wind up in summer school this year young man."

LMFAO!!!

[danoj]

The Times is requiring him to state positions he does not believe in in order to gt his op ed posted. They are basically asking a republican to writed an Obamaesk piece in order to be published. If that bias I don't know what is.

[Purobi]

What article did you read? What are you talking about?

[sanywhere]

um, i think you are reading a different article.

[Kahni]

They made no position requirements at all. I cannot imagine them caring enough to bother to do so.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

Are you kidding me??? READ David Bromwich's article here at HP from yesterday, and discover the NYT's agenda.

[elmoor]

They are requiring that he write a POSITION paper, not a negative ad.

Jeez....

[CindyKay]

Wheres My Comment ????

i Only Called the Dude a

D
O
U
C
H
E

Bag !

Whats Wrong With That ????

[EarthToZoey]

Haha nice. :P

[RRonin]

I just read McCain's piece and went back and re-read Obama's piece. There is no comparison between the two and McCain's piece is a waste of newsprint and electrons. The man can't get beyond the most simplistic and vague generalities, coupled with ad hominem denunciations of Obama. Good on ya, NYT!

[janvoght]

sen mc cain, with ALL due respect he is owed, speaks in 'WAR SPEAK". at least that is the language he is most comfortable with. (and with his navy record, who would question that?) my point is, america has decided and communicated a desire to move away from the war paradigm. this war has been at too great a cost both economically and in human treasure.
i wish mc cain could get as excited (as he does when speaking of anything to do with war) about our economy, diplomatic solutions, environmental issues, or even the birth control vs viagra debate.
obama '08

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

Those retardopublicans wanted to be Winston Churchill.

Well....

Congratulations!!!

[BrettnCalgary]

Welcome to republican gallipoli.

[charlesbaer]

I cant believe the times would censor john mccain . they should not censor gig by charles webster baer of bend , oregon , usa ,

http://globalinternetgovernment.com

.

[RageAgainstTheNeoCons]

What a slap in the face to the McCain campaign after they keep emphasizing that Obama had never been to Iraq and now that he's there, it's the best move that he's made so far. With Maliki saying that he sides with Obama's vision of withdrawal and the huge reception from the troops and that 3 point jumper on the first try....swo­oosh! Not to be outdone, McCain has announced plans to visit "Czechoslovakia" and make an appearance somewhere near the "Iraq and Pakistan border"!!

[Rider3]

Wow....tha­t's all that's going through my mind after reading both pieces. Just...I mean...wow­....OMG, please do not let McCain get in....

[wmbear]

My gawd, The Times has a pair after all!...

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

Funny thing is, McCorp and NYT have pretty much the same position.

But NYT judged that this would hurt their mutual cause more than help!

Hahahahahahahaha!!!

[mamacat]

Google the July 19th Der Spiegel, and read for one'sself what exactly PM Maliki said in his statement:

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

Then, read the statement sent to the NYT by McCain's people:

"To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if P.M. 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."

One has to make one's own conclusions. I see the statement coming out of the McCain camp as typical of what is wrong with American foreign policy in general, and what is wrong with McCain's campaign in particular.

American foreign policy does not listen to what other people are saying, plain and simple. The GOP has set up their goals, without input from foreign policy experts and without listening to what the people in effected nations have to say.

McCain is either out of touch with reality, prone to misleading remarks, or an out-and-out liar. It is not disrespectful of his past military service to say that a McCain presidency, judging by the remarks he has made over the past year, would be an absolute and total failure, little or no better than the Bush presidency.

[Danigirl65]

AMEN!!! McCain is out of touch is my choice of the three. He seems to forget what he has said before and the media just ignores it. I say, give him ample air time to hang himself - it won't take long.