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

[Cybersquirt]

All I have to do is count the number of times McCain mentions Obama vs the number of times the opposite occurs. It's like 10 to 2.. Probably not unlike the political ads that will soon be flooding our airwaves. Joy.

[TheHandyman]

One can only wonder how the People of Arizona have continued to send this intellectual midget to Washington for as long as they have. It must have something to do with the heat.

[kellygrrrl]

I have a lot of family and friends in AZ., and not one of them has a single good thing to say about MkKain

I have no idea how he stays in office

[ultrabop]

it's the heat

[ultrabop]

Why do intellectual midgets make it in America?? Some things need to be changed, but I'm not sure what. I think, actually that it has to do with the monopolizing of the media by people who have no clue as to what the proper place of journalism is, which is to give the news, no matter how it effects the bottom line.

[OnTheOtherBeach]

If they don;t, Cindy will cut off their Bud supply.

[noamjunior]

Times did McCain a favor not running this piece of flip flopping nonsense.,
McCain directly contradicted himself, saying at one point troops would come home from Iraq by 2013 and at another point that they would be redeployed in Afghanistan.

[jamomano]

READ THE NEW YORK TIMES!! ANOTHER UNFAIR AND BIASED NEWSPAPER!

[AdLib]

WATCH FAUX NEWS/ABC NEWS/CNN NEWS/WSJ/NY POST!!

ANOTHER UNFAIR AND BIASED NEWS STATION/NEWSPAPER!

[noamjunior]

Why? For not letting McCain hang himself on his own, poorly chosen words?
try reading before you lock the caps down next time.

[lorenrt303]

The problem, jamomano, is that the piece doesn't contain any news, just more of the good ole Spew. Johnny can't write but at least he knows how to use the "CAPS" button on his computer. A step you might consider.

[BruntLIVE]

Why does McCain care about what the NYC does? He has talk radio to spew his message everyday. Also, do you think for a moment McCain "penned" this Op-Ed. *ell no and we know it. Why doesn't McCain do what Cheney and the Bush Adm do all the time, reserve a noon talk with Rush Limbaugh. No one wants to hear or read what McCain says......­..because it's not him saying it. He is Dole II (aka puppet)

[humuhumunukunukuapuaa]

It was a Hit Piece on BHO, the NYT was right to reject it.

[wanj]

That op-ed was unbelievably juvenile..­.. It was a rant from a dillussional old man that has lost his bearings. The rejection made my day though!

[HBeachbum]

vs. a naive piece by a first term Senator that has no clue how the world works. But that's OK because he is the Chosen One.

[UpstateSC]

Reps should be glad that it was rejected, rather than to complain about the rejection.

[humuhumunukunukuapuaa]

Who wants to hear JMcC parroting BHO's plan, just to deny it the next day?

[kellygrrrl]

and have GWB steal it the day after that

[fearwig]

This is based on a concrete problem with the article, not an overt bias.

If McCain does have a definition for "victory in Iraq", which he says in pretty much every second sentence, he needs to make it clear. Otherwise his statements are meaningless, aesthetic fallacy-ridden nonsense.

[ciscoguy]

The Times is great for getting one side of the story. They're a vehicle for advancing leftist agendas, which is really no surprise why everyone here is delighted to read this story. Anything that squelches the voice of people with opposing viewpoints the left welcomes with open arms.

The problem is, the Gray Lady's time has come and gone. Their increasing irrelevance in the media is undeniable, yet their name is such that things like this result in more coverage than if they just ran the op-ed article in the first place. It's a vicious cycle - the fewer people that read, the more brazen they get with their partisan agendas, the more people report on it, the worse the Times looks.

[dolphy]

Leftist agenda my a**. They were cheerleading the lead up to the Iraq war. They did not publish McSame 'cause his op-ed reads like a 7th grade paper plus it's all commentary, no facts and no detailed plans.

[Skippy3000]

Amen.

[AdLib]

What an idjit. Ever hear of the Iraq War that Judith Miller at the NYT promoted like a new flavor of Coke?

You and your like are losers with hateful wishful thinking that the rest of us just laugh at for it's degree of desperation.

[rvn1965]

I like that, ciscoguy!!

[Skippy3000]

Liberals fear the free and open exchange of ideas.

[Bettysdad]

Why don't you list all the assaults on free speech committed by liberals in the US.

Take your time.

We'll wait.

[AdLib]

Faux News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Fox and Friends), ABC News, Rush Limbaugh, Wall Street Journal, NY Post, Washington Times, etc.

All conservative outlets offering a free and open exchange?

What a lying SOB.

[kevenseven]

That would explain Faux noise.....­.....

[AdLib]

Faux News (BiII_O'Reilly, Sean_Hannity, Fox and Friends), ABC News, Rush_Limbaugh, Wall Street Journal, NY Post, Washington Times, etc.

All conservative outlets offering a free and open exchange?

What a_lying_SOB.

[kellygrrrl]

oh, dang, Skippy! You are hysterical!

[ciscoguy]

The Times is great for getting one side of the story. They're a vehicle for advancing leftist agendas, which is really no surprise why everyone here is delighted to read this story. Anything that squelches the voice of people with opposing viewpoints the left welcomes with open arms.



The problem is, the Gray Lady's time has come and gone. Their increasing irrelevance in the media is undeniable, yet their name is such that things like this result in more coverage than if they just ran the op-ed article in the first place. It's a vicious cycle - the fewer people that read, the more brazen they get with their partisan agendas, the more people report on it, the worse the Times looks.

[noamjunior]

posting it twice doesn't make it make sense

[dtrobert]

bravo... And now the oscar for the most insipid parroting of right-wing talking points goes to...

It's quite laughable to hear the right call the NYT "leftist". Clearly, you seem to believe that everything to the left of Hitler and Mussolini is "leftist". The NYT is a classic corporate paper, holding fast to corporatist views. You'd have a hard time to see anything resembling a non-corporate point of view anywhere in its pages.

The NYT has a few corporatist center-left voices, but that is more than "balanced" by the center-right and hard-right voices which permeate its OpEd pages. Sorry, not biting.

[HBeachbum]

Anything to the right of Socialism is conservativem right Comrade?

[rvn1965]

I see you covered your ridiculous claims by admitting to 'a few corporate center-left voices, but you can't be serious!

[Fremon]

Good, and if it goes down you can probably satisfied by Fox news with its unpartisan agenda?

[Bettysdad]

Every day the NYT publishes something called the "Business" section. It extols the virtues of corporations and other businesses.

I have never been able to find the "Labor" section.

[calichic]

Yes!! Succinctly put. But this ditto head will not get it.

[econdr]

i think it was justified. read what he wrote. he's just nagging about obama the entire time.

the entire essay was not policy related. it was more of a tit for tat attack on obama's positions.­..

I think NYT is above that kind of garbage...

[Bettysdad]

McCain's piece was rejected because the first line was:

If elected President, I will grant statehood to Arizona.

[dolphy]

Reading his essay, I now understand why he graduated almost last in his class.

[truthbrigade]

894 out of 899. But none of those five ever thought of running for the President of the US!!!

[ymax]

And HE did not wrtie it himself.

[ultrabop]

he might have kind of approved it over a Scotch

[obombbombiran]

So everyone here is against the Fairness Doctrine? What's good for the goose...

[kevenseven]

The fairness doctrine applied to the publicly owned airwaves, bright guy.

The NY Times is owned by a family.

[Bettysdad]

No, the NYT is owned by its stockholders.

Have you ever been correct?

[Exit]

It is nothing but a Sean Hannity style attack piece. By the way, McCain does not use a computer. Did he type this up on a typewriter?