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

[CaptainHowdy]

How do we win a war when we aren't even fighting a war? And who is the "enemy" anyway?

Our presence in Iraq is technically considered a "police action", not a war.

All this talk about "victory" and "surrender" is meaningless rhetoric designed to appeal to simple minded Americans, who have no ability whatsoever to discern the true meaning of such commments.

I think that it's hysterical that the NY Times called McCain on defining what "victory" is.

In all actuality, since the original impetus for the so called "war" was disarm Saddam of WMDs that he never had... we actually won the "war" before it even started.

[SeanOcali]

I just visited Drudge to read McCain's article (then I took a shower).

NYT is correct in asking for a revision. It's inappropriate for this format. The entire piece consists of "Obama's wrong on this, wrong on that." McCain needs to provide and article that communicates his views on the issues. The editor wants something similar to what McCain might say in a long convention speech - not a political attack ad.

[ZsaZsa]

OK, in order to qualify for publication in the op-ed section, you need to meet 3 benchmarks, if you will.

1. The piece needs to offer something new. It cannot just be a press release in the guise of an op-ed. If you want to submit a press release, then submit a press release.

2. It should not be a hit piece on your opponent. Op-eds should be for intelligent reflection, not a forum for lame-a$$ed war of words. The op-ed pages are probably the last refuge for people seeking intelligent political reflection.

3. The writer should have his facts straight. Stuff like "Senator 0bama refuses to acknowledge any political progress" is just bullsh*t.

[noamjunior]

given that McCain's piece had troops both coming home from Iraq and being deployed in Afghanistan, I think they just axed it out of professional courtesy

[Relax08]

Also McCain seems to not appreciate that contrary to his editorial, Iraq does want a timetable and does want essentially what Obama wants. The editorial is an embarrassment but certainly will show up on Fox. Heck, they will probably run a special on it.

[HallStyle]

First I would like to say that I do believe that the NYT editor should have ran the Mccain OpEd. With that being said it must have been PRETTY BAD for them not to post it.

McCain is not on Barack's level intellectually! I not saying he is DUMB but he aint nowhere near as intelligent as Barack Obama, and it probably showed in the OpEd.

[woundedduck]

McCain's rebuttal is infantile and, as Shipley notes, doesn't put forth a plan. It's an underwhelming piece written by an underwhelming candidate.

[IamPhenom]

Obama's Op/Ed: His plan for ending the Iraq War

McCain's Op/Ed: One big smear of Obama, filled with half-truths and misleading attacks


Go read the McCain op/ed on Drudge Report, and you'll see exactly what I mean. As usual, McCain took the low road.

[ZsaZsa]

Face it, Repubs, the Times did your boy a favor. If this were published, I would not consider the page fit to line my cat's litter box. He would have done better by just writing the following:

The surge is working.
Senator Obama has no plan.
We're making progress, but it could always be reversed.
We're winning, but we've not yet won.
We're succeeding, but we've not yet succeeded.
We're safer, but we're not yet safe.
We're doing well enough to justify staying, but we're not doing well enough to justify leaving.
And, Senator Obama has no plan. What's that, you say? I don't have a plan either? Listen, I was shot down over Vietnam. I was a POW. So don't question me on military stuff, motherf***er.
Did I mention the surge is working?

That pretty much sums up McFlakjacket's position on Iraq.

[LaurettaK]

I think the NYT was foolish to reject McCain's article. I read it on Drudge, and didn't find anything in it persuasive. In fact, McCain seems to echo and reinforce Obama's criticism of McCain as "more of the same." McCain's article suggests that he is committed to a completely open-ended engagement and that he will accept nothing other than clear victory. (Under those terms, we'd still be in Vietnam. . . of course, that's probably the war McCain is still fighting in his mind.)

I respect Senator McCain, and I believe he would be a far more deft Commander in Chief than GWB. But, it's too late. Americans (and Democrats in Congress against their better judgment) gave the Republican administration the chance to win this war with both money, soldiers' lives and limbs, and time. They haven't done it. How long should we wait Senator McCain? (My guess to his answer: 100 years, if that what it takes.)

NYT should let McCain dig himself into GWB's position. I don't think it helps him. On the other hand, denying him equal time on the editorial page in a presidential race, does seem to work to McCain's advantage of portraying positive coverage of BO as "liberal bias." Silly NYT!

[Diana]

What is a NYT editor doing emailing drudge in the first place?! Oh, wait, this is the same paper that hired billy kristol, in 2008, to represent a 'legitimate voice of the right.'

[k6007]

They're simply trying to fire up the conservative base. It's not going to work.

[rvn1965]

All we need to fire up the "base' is to make this trash mandatory reading.

[Wonderwheel]

Both sides are correct, and both sides are wrong.

The NYT gives the same kiss-off letter to anyone who submits unsolicited editorials. It has nothing to do with liberal bias. The NYT is biased for sure, but it is a bias for yellow journalism not for liberals. If the NYT had a liberal bias they would not have supported the war in Iraq nor the President uncritically as they did.

But also, Shipley's excuses are baloney and obviously hypocritical. Obama doesn't give a single "concrete term" to victory in Afghanistan any more than Shipley demands from McCain in Iraq.

Lastly, McCain's proffered editorial is so filled with fantasy, lies, fabrications, and make believe that it belongs on the funny pages not the editorial pages.

[cuomofied]

Reading these comments makes me embarassed to be an American. From "Well, Judith Miller did this... (do you remember how pissed you were back then?) to "leftist agenda", it's clear that you are all willing to trash the Constitution and basic liberties in order to further your own agendas.

McCain is an idiot, IMHO, bt he should be able to publish an editorial in the same publication as Obama. The only right you have is to disagree with him, not protect illogical people from illogical rhetoric.

Besides, it would have really helped to let him show how truly out of touch he is.

But to say that what they did is ok or fair, that's straight Bush-Co thinking.

[Diana]

What's an editor of the NYT doing emailing drudge in the first place?! Then again, this is the same paper that hired billy kristol in 2008 to represent a 'legitimate voice of the right. '

I guess you're bowing to the New Media, right NYT, where propaganda is in the eye of the beholder and facts are simply someone's bias.

[Bettysdad]

The NYT rejected the story after reading just the first line:

"My first act as President will be to grant statehood to Arizona."

[paixa3]

LOL, oh F&ck me.

[Diana]

What is a NYT editor doing email Drudge!? Oh, wait, this is the same newspaper that decided, in 2008, that BIlly Kristol was still legitimate voice of the 'right.'

Guess you gotta play the game, right NYT, even if it means legitimizing extremist propaganda that turns reality upside down and encourages ignorance.

[Bystander]

We hardly need more proof that the NYT is a yellow liberal rag.

[AdLib]

Proof? Your type doesn't use proof to come to conclusions, how else can you explain your believing that cavemen rode dinosaurs?

[noamjunior]

Have you ever needed any proof for any opinion you ever had?

[wagadog]

no, they just don't take op-ed pieces scrawled in purple crayon, with multiple misspellings.

[Fremon]

You would prefer the Washington Times and Bill Kristol? Or perhaps another right wing rag like Fox news?

[k6007]

You're an i di ot, if you think the nyts is a friend to liberals. Faux nooze, much? Man, they play you guys like dumbbells. lol