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

[anfractuous]

It is hard to see how, from an orderly yet unpleasant pile of manure you've thrown yourself (with no provocation) headlong into, any kind of exit can be construed as victory, much less as honorable.
Only someone, who has somehow dishonored himself, can be so enraptured with the idea of honor.
.

[danoj]

Any articulation other than immediate withdrawl and unconditional surrender by the U.S. would not be accepted by the Times, me thinks. Sad that this news paper has an agenda / liberal bias and only room for a single narrow minded opinion.

[mamacat]

Thus spake McCain.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

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

[Kahni]

What I cannot understand is why anyone would waste their time writing stuff like this. Dan just can't possibly think anyone is going to be persuaded by such an obvious bias that only has room for a single narrow minded opinion.

Dann-o, sometime you're going to agree with a paper, sometimes you won't. That's the way it is and no amount of single-line diatribe is going to convince anyone of anything. If you really come here to take part in the conversation, try conversing instead of lecturing.

[RedKnuckles]

so...Bill Kristol is one of their liberally biased writers??

[LITU]

Honestly, look at the kinds of people supporting McCain. People who primarily want to hold onto what's theirs at any cost, because they see altruism as contributing to a welfare caste. People who believe that taxes are a liberal evil designed to foster and perpetuate that welfare caste. (I can do this all day.)

Basically, they are people who identify taxes with deductions on their earnings, yet fail to see that every bloody thing we touch has a tax applied to it, and largely as a result of corporatism.

They probably couldn't share when they were children either.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

At the lower end of the pay scale, you can see the wolf pack mentality.

First find out what the top dog is saying (be it McCorp, Kristol, Rush Limbo or whomever) and then echo whatever they are saying.

WOOF!

[Bettysdad]

Conservatism is a long-identified pathology, not an ideology.

Read Dean's book "Conservatives without Conscience­."

[Dannydel]

I'm glad John McCain returned alive after his 5 years of sacrifice. His time spent in that hell hole however, does not make him a foreign policy wonk.

[Bettysdad]

It was not "sacrifice" because he did not choose to do it.

The same reason he's not a "hero." He didn't do anything, which is what makes someone a hero.

[GuiltyByStander]

If the Right were not in such a total shambles, this guy would get into his wife's jet plane and go somewhere nice, like billionaires are supposed to do.

[Pyrrhus]

I agree.

I don't understand why McPain just doesn't get himself a hot air balloon (he can provide the fuel himself) or a small airplane and try to fly across the world or the Antarctic or something, just like the rest of the rich guys with .5" todgers and a huge ego.

[danoj]

Why is it always rich vs. poor with libs. Poor people have been voting democrat for 50 years, and they are still poor.

[RedKnuckles]

No, they've been voting Repub for years and are now poorer than ever, because they believe the smears and lies the Repubs use during campaigns. It is "not always rich vs. poor" with libs as you can clearly see most of the rest of the posts here do not reference this. I like how you respond to someone painting McCain with a broad brush by responding by painting liberals with a broad brush.

[Kahni]

Now, this one really leaves me breathless. In Dan's world of sweeping logic, this is nonetheless a gem.

Here we have the same people, all poor, all voting every time Dem for 50 years ! Until now, these poor, poor folk have been unrecognized. Until now, they did not have Dann-o to step forward and point out their error: they are poor even though -- or perhaps because -- they have voted Dem.

No others ever voted Dem. No one ever voted dem and them got rich later. No rich guy ever voted Dem and became poor. It's just poor folk voting Dem and staying poor. Everone else votes something else.

Look, Dann-o, if the poor are doomed to be poor by voting Dem, then it really is "always rich vs. poor." Your hopelessly overstretched generalizations do you no service.

[missette]

Journalistically, one of biggest problems with McCain's piece is the number of unsubstantiated claims, among them "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.” (may be true, but published where, and when?);
"In 2007 he [Oama] wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost." (again, he needs to cite a source for this assertion); "...not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. (ditto); "Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. (as he's over there now talking to commanders, where is the hard evidence he won't talk to them?); and "He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable" specific (passage in Obama's speech needs to be cited). Finally, McCain concludes by stating we must win but never defines what "win" means. (And, as aside, I feel fully confident that, unlike Obama, McCain did not himself write his Op-Ed piece but rather it was crafted by operatives­.)

[Pyrrhus]

Missette-

Being a rethug means never having to substantiate your claims. It is enough that you scream the loudest, that's all.

[NewsCorpse]

The New york Times was correct to refuse to publish McCain's self-serving op-ed. I t did respond to Obama's op-ed and offered nothing newsworthy on its own.

The NYT is under no obligation to give free space to candidates for what what amounts to PR. They said...

http://tinyurl.com/mccain-nope

...and they were quite right to do so.

[Melissa]

The NY Times was stupid not to run this op-ed. It would have been a one day story now it is all over the news media and the internet. Big, big, mistake.

[Kahni]

I certainly agree with the idea that "now it is all over the news". I don't get why that would be a problem for the paper. Sounds like free promo for them.

[soapington]

Is everyone else finding it impossible to access previous pages of comments?

[mamacat]

That happens sometimes. The problem will correct itself when postings slow down.

[drd1044]

I have been having problems accessing previous pages for a few weeks now. I wrote to the technical staff and got no response. They should post on their FAQ section why this happens and what, if anything ,can be done about it.

[pbcrunch]

The rage being directed at the Times by the right-wing is utterly ridiculous when only two facts are known: 1) McCain submitted a column and 2) it was rejected with a politically tone-deaf email from the editor.

I find it really suspicious that McCain's campaign is not calling this request for a rewrite "unprecedented" considering the Times has published 7 previous submissions (I can understand why the Times is not going to bring this up; they are supposed to publish the news, not make it). If the Times had never asked for McCain to rewrite or revise his previous submissions then, yes, this is something to get angry about; until McCain presents that evidence, this is a blatant attempt by McCain's to politicize and declare manufactured umbrage at something that is most probably entirely run of the mill.

[Kahni]

Ya know, pb, that's darn good thinkin' there. Obviously, the pb don't stand fer no pea brain.

I wonder if there's any way to find out if you're right.

[northcan]

This clearly is an indication, that progress in his mind, is defined differently than the ordinary soldier. He did not even attempt to use a computer years ago, when it would have made life much simpler for him. Instead, he was too focused on himself, his legacy, his WH bid. Not learning a simple thing like the computer in middle age has now put him at a disadvantage, both in education, foreign policy of other countries, contact within his own party, and / or friends, family, foe, and now with NYT editorial. He's such a lazy idiot.

Every weekend he spends at home. He has no urgency because he feels entitlement. I do believe he has issues that went unchallenged steming from his childhood. He is a kook.....n­othing but a shallow, ignorant, selfish gold digger. He's a loser.

[skibum49]

The only thing wrong with Senator Mc Cains proposed Oped is that is doesn't tell the truth.

In his oped he said "No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator O 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."

When the 'surge' began we had 128,569 troops in Iraq. We now have about 150,000
So what are we to make from the fact that there are more troops after the "five “surge” brigades" have "departed" that before the surge began.

Perhaps it wasn't really a surge? In fact it was an Escalation .


"I can tell you that it [the Surge] is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr City are quiet."
--John McCain, Town Hall meeting, May 28, 2008

Check your numbers Johnnie boy. Perhaps the extra troops are in Czechoslovakia or out there on that border you seem to think that Iraq has with Pakistan!

[rajoro]

All of this I believe is related to the attempt by B u s h and C h e n e y to secure a contract for permanent bases in Iraq. The MSM leaves this out of the analysis.

Now the Iraqis know B u s h is out and are excited by the prospect of the timing of the end of the UN mandate with a new POTUS. They know they do not have to accept American terms for a sustained "boots over the oil" end game for the invasion.

This is all part of the PNAC, military industrial complex's plan to sustain American hegemony in the world. Every Republican president has tried to sustain the "boots on the oil" plan, Reagan tried a forward position in Lebanon, B u s h tried inKuwait and Saudi Arabia until B i n L a d e n and 911 at which time America beat a hasty retreat into Iraq and the plan continues.

The only chance they have now is M c C a i n and a sustained presence in the ME theatre. He as President will have to make a case against Iran and a forced armed forces agreement with an cowed and threatened Iraqi government.

[calichic]

Yes, they so much as admitted to this as reported by "The Nation". This magazine also reports that our oil companies have strong-armed a deal to get 75% of Iraqi oil revenues in exchange for their investment in Iraqi oil infrastructure. They justify this by claiming that conditions are so precarious in Iraq, it makes investment risky and thus the reward must be worth the effort. Interestingly, of course, it was U.S. forign policy that set up these risky conditions. How convenient.

[EarthToZoey]

For some, military expansion is about power. For some it is about money. And then there are the anglo-saxon religious whack jobs that think it is global Manifest Destiny for America to dominate the world.

[gd7277467]

Senator John McCain !

An American embarrassment.

[totaldisbelief]

Johnmccainasaurus ...a dinosaur

[parunach]

I think that McCain is acting childish. When someone is a kid, he would think that he would have to win every contest he competes in. However, having been in Vietnam, I would have expected better judgment from him. One must know to cut ones losses and walk away. We cannot win everything, especially at such costs. Given that we need our troops in Afghanistan and that is a more important battle with the Taliban, I want a CinC with better talents at calling the shots. I am no expert and even I can see this.

[BWonka]

Mc Loser's op-ed shows his fear of losing and his inability to give concrete evidence of what would be his plans for a win in the illegally occupied Iraq.

Too bad, Mc Loser. Still running around whining about Sen. O instead of coming up with some plans, some ideas.

McBu$h - wrong in 2000, even more so in 2008

[sawdustinhershoes]

I think they should have published the piece. It shows how McCain simply mimics Bush. It's also amaturish and poorly written.

I mean it looks like something Bush would write. Oh. I forgot, Bush can't read or write.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

I agree.

I think they didn't publish it because they support his program and didn't want to embarrass him.

They did him a favor but he's too stupid and angry to see it.

[OnTheOtherBeach]

They didn't publish it because it read as if it were written by a pissed-off 5th grader.