Drudge: NYT rejects McCain’s rebuttal op-ed because it doesn’t “mirror” Obama’s; Update: Text of NYT e-mail added

posted at 1:03 pm on July 21, 2008 by Allahpundit

Which god did he please to get the Times to do him this favor, I wonder. Remember when they endorsed him in January and he very stupidly touted it on his website, only to quietly drop it when he realized the Republican base doesn’t consider the NYT’s imprimatur a badge of honor? This is the antithesis. You’re a real conservative at last, Maverick!

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES — less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper’s decision to refuse McCain’s direct rebuttal to Obama’s ‘My Plan for Iraq’ has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles…

[Former Clinton aide and current NYT op-ed editor David] Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial [in an e-mail to McCain's staff on Friday].

‘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.’

Shipley continues: ‘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.’

Drudge has the text of the rejected draft. The punchline? It’s true, the piece is short on specifics (and long on rubbing the left’s face in their misjudgment of the surge) — but then so was Obama’s op-ed, never delving beyond the Iraq/Afghanistan boilerplate he’s been pushing for the last year except insofar as he revealed the number of brigades to be redeployed. As for McCain’s non-definition of victory, quote:

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama 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. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

Vague, but then so was Obama’s caveat in his op-ed about “tactical readjustments” to his timetable based on conditions on the ground. What exactly are they looking for by way of specifics? “We’ll go home when Sadr’s dead”? The more capable the IA is in defending its turf, the more American troops can be redeployed. I don’t know what they want beyond that. But if that’s not good enough, how about this for a compromise: McCain will offer a precise, legalistic definition of victory in return for Obama offering a precise, legalistic definition of defeat. Are we already there? If so, say so, because that sure would put Obama’s supposed meeting of the minds with Maliki in stark, stark context.

And to think, 49% believe the media’s trying to help Obama win. Exit question: Since when does Drudge do favors for McCain? Or was a hot story bashing the Times simply too much for him to resist, whatever the political fallout might be?

Update: Here’s the full text of Shipley’s e-mail:

From: David Shipley/NYT/NYTIMES [mailto:XXXXXXX]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:31 PM
To: XXXXXXX
Cc: XXXXXXX
Subject: Re: JSM Op-Ed

Dear Mr. XXXXXX,

Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.

I’d be very eager to publish the Senator on the Op-Ed page.

However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.

I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft.

Let me suggest an approach.

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. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And
it would need to describe the Senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. Her email is XXXXXXXX; her phone is 212-XXXXXXX.

Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.

Sincerely,

David Shipley


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Is it the intention of the NY Times to make itself irrelevant? I don’t read it in paper or online for anything anymore. This only further confirms my belief that the once great newspaper has sunk below the National Enquirer.

rbj on July 21, 2008 at 4:02 PM

An 881 word essay that dedicates a whopping 27 words to his “vision” for “winning the war”. Gee, I can’t imagine why the NYT doesn’t want to run this. Maybe Juan McShame should have purchased a full-page advertisement instead of trying to pawn off his “I Hate Obama” ad as a legitimate Op-Ed.

DanKenton on July 21, 2008 at 4:23 PM

Thank you NYTimes for this gift.

Now people will read McCain’s words.

jcrue on July 21, 2008 at 4:24 PM

“It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And
it would need to describe the Senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.”

David Shipley just looks ignorant. Usually, a commander’s strategy is considered a matter of national security and is therefore secret. Nor does such secrecy apply in matters of war alone; “secrecy and dispatch” are named by Publius as two of the chief requirements of the Executive. The NYT expends much effort interfering in the activity of the American Executive. David Shipley is getting a head start with McCain, and if McCain relates the fine points of his strategies, he’ll spare the Times the effort of stealing them.

Kralizec on July 21, 2008 at 4:32 PM

I’d sure like to see the correspondence from the NYT to Obama. Did they call it a draft and did the NYT give them advice?

Dusty on July 21, 2008 at 4:37 PM

HAAA “with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate” nevermind this joker. His requirements are to articulate the Obama position and accept it as his own. Not only would troop levels not be determined by a politician, but timetables are off the ‘ahh’ table.. and compelling the Iraqis to do anything on an articifial timetable is well.. Obama !
Vote the New York Times the traitor it is at http://www.countryaboveself.com

ilitigant on July 21, 2008 at 4:44 PM

Why would/should the liberal Times print the Republican nominee’s self-serving piece?

JiangxiDad on July 21, 2008 at 1:21 PM

You are right. A free press means everyone can print what they wish and you are free to select what you wish to read.

An open public square makes it fair. In a free society it is not freedom to demand any agent represent all viewpoints equally. Who decides what is fair? I want to decide for myself

Press freedom has some trouble today because many forms of communication (like broadcast television) are closed except to the rich and powerful

The internet has helped return the open public square

The funny part worth reading is the lame rejection letter. The NYT is a free agent. It is not required to publish anyone but their political correctnes was laid bare and it isn’t pretty.

The grapes are sour anyway said the Fox when he could not reach them.

Your Presidential plan is too shallow so I cannot print it said the Editor to the candidate running for Presidency in in a nation of 300 million

all the news that is fit to print =

all the news that fits our needs

The one thing I hated about the MYT was the ink rubbed off on your hands. I always had to wash my hands after reading it

entagor on July 21, 2008 at 4:51 PM

Sorry, I’m on vacation this decade and I won’t be able to read anything in the NYT. When you can mirror what you have been doing the last ten years then get back in touch with my assistant…

d1carter on July 21, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Basically, this guy is saying “if you’re more like Obama you can get some press.”

It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And
it would need to describe the Senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

Obama’s piece did mention troop levels, but somewhat vaguely. The timetables are a point of contradiction between the candidates- Obama has been calling for us to get out of Iraq by x date for some time now, and McCain (and Bush) have said many times it depends on the security situation, not the calendar. Unless McCain puts a date down in ink he can’t get published? Obama’s piece didn’t seem to lay out how he would compel Iraqi cooperation, either.

What kind of “mirror” does this guy use?

cs89 on July 21, 2008 at 5:21 PM

The one thing I hated about the MYT was the ink rubbed off on your hands. I always had to wash my hands after reading it

entagor on July 21, 2008 at 4:51 PM

Smell it, that isn’t “ink”…

right2bright on July 21, 2008 at 5:29 PM

To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate.

In other words, they want McCain to sanction their treason, because leaking plans like those would be willfully aiding and providing comfort to the enemy.

Spc Steve on July 21, 2008 at 5:34 PM

McCain should henceforth completely freeze out the NYT, never answer its reporters questions at press conferences, submit editorials to the WSJ, USA Today, the LAT, etc.

A better candidate than McCain could easily play this rejection, when coupled with the alphabet media’s current following of Obama to the end of the earth, to his huge advantage for the rest of the campaign, but McCain will just soldier on in his predictable reprisal of Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign.

molonlabe28 on July 21, 2008 at 5:36 PM

This nothing short of leftie censorship.

docdave on July 21, 2008 at 5:38 PM

Here’s another thing: if your hometown newspaper just block-copies articles from the NYT, LA Tiimes, WaPo, etc: Why are you still taking your hometown paper? I finally got fed up with that with the Dallas papaer and finally cancelled even the Sunday edition.

Look at how ‘green’ I’m being by not killing trees for fishwrappers.

michaelo on July 21, 2008 at 5:40 PM

Exit question: Since when does Drudge do favors for McCain?

I don’t know he has been literally on his his knees for Obama this whole election cycle, maybe his knees are getting bruised and his lips are starting to get chapped?

Someone send Matt some soft knee pads and some lip balm.

Chakra Hammer on July 21, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Hopefully the republicans will use this as the gift that keeps on giving.If and when the Fairness Doctrine rears its ugly head; this could be justification to include newspapers and not just electronic media. Kind of a big fat poison pill to kill the legislation.

meci on July 21, 2008 at 5:48 PM

This is too much, even for the NYT. What exactly is victory they say? Well what exactly is ethical journalism? They sure as hell do not know.

Terrye on July 21, 2008 at 6:03 PM

C’mon guys… the NYT Company lost half of its value in the last year; let them keep their radical left views

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?iax=1&Symbol=US%3aNYT&CP=0&PT=7

As for McCain, he’s no conservative. If he was, his editorial would already be in the WSJ, the Post, or the Washington Times.

bigbeas on July 21, 2008 at 6:07 PM

If McCain wants to mirror Obama’s. he could just submit it in crayon.

RobertInAustin on July 21, 2008 at 6:20 PM

McCain should write a satirical “mirror” piece slavishly mimicking Obama’s entire “opinion” piece in reverse, and submit that along with a xerox of Phil Gramm’s butt.

Screw these traitorous little Times pimps and their declining readership, falling stock values and waning intelligence.

All the news that’s fit to spit… out.

profitsbeard on July 21, 2008 at 6:38 PM

This is the advantage of there really being a liberal bias. If they could just see how they look they’d never give these gifts. Obviously they cant, and neither can anyone else in the echo chamber.

“Dear Senator McCain,

Why cant you be more like Senator Obama?

Try again.

Sincerely,
NYT”

Dash on July 21, 2008 at 7:34 PM

I read the McCain op-ed and, in my opinion, it read like a script for an Obama attack ad.

I don’t understand why they want an op-ed that “mirrors” Obama’s; that doesn’t make much sense.

I’ll never vote for McCain, but he should focus more on his accomplishments. He has too much going for him, and he has an impressive legacy, but he minimizes those qualities by attacking all the time.

sandman on July 21, 2008 at 7:42 PM

http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/7/7/4/9/21129477-21129481-slarge.jpg

I bet they would run this

tomas on July 21, 2008 at 7:45 PM

I’ll never vote for McCain, but he should focus more on his accomplishments. He has too much going for him, and he has an impressive legacy, but he minimizes those qualities by attacking all the time.
sandman on July 21, 2008 at 7:42 PM

What freaking Democraptastic planet are you on, troll?

TexasJew on July 21, 2008 at 8:57 PM

TexasJew on July 21, 2008 at 8:57 PM

he wont vote for McCain not reason to post here..

Chakra Hammer on July 21, 2008 at 8:58 PM

he wont vote for McCain then no reason to post here..

Chakra Hammer on July 21, 2008 at 8:59 PM

So what in the He!! do we do to get exposure on this?

mimi1220 on July 21, 2008 at 9:03 PM

he wont vote for McCain then no reason to post here..

Chakra Hammer on July 21, 2008 at 8:59 PM

Being a hard-assed conservative, I’m no big fan of McCain, but saying that McCain “attacks all the time” is just a typical whining partisan defense of that useless weak piece o’crap that my beloved nation is getting shoved down its throat by the MSM and the Left.
I wish McCain would attack him and his dangerous socialistic policies all the time and 24/7. Not to do so would simply be traitorous.

TexasJew on July 21, 2008 at 9:10 PM

Gees. That letter basically said, we’d love to print an op-ed from you as long as your write what we want you to write.

Spolitics on July 21, 2008 at 9:27 PM

Chakra Hammer on July 21, 2008 at 8:59 PM

why would you say that? do you prefer the echo chamber as opposed to the clash of ideas?

chasdal on July 21, 2008 at 9:37 PM

TexasJew on July 21, 2008 at 8:57 PM

Kinky, is that you?

bigbeas on July 21, 2008 at 10:57 PM

The lesson is that if you write a letter proposing timetables which the NYT supports, you get printed. If you write a letter about why you oppose time tables you don’t.

How can we debate issues of the day in the NYT if you have to agree with the Times position in order to get printed.

KW64 on July 21, 2008 at 11:14 PM

The press has lower credibility ratings than the democratic
congress, which means their family members don’t even support them,and they could care less.

Republican, democrat,or Independent,no one thinks the press does a good job of getting the people the facts on domestic or international issues.

Yet they are still so effective because so many people live on a “15 minute” news cycle.Catch a headline,a news break,or David letterman and the average person thinks they are getting the facts.

Try discussing “Bush lied”,”Plame CIA issue”,”Saddam’s ties to terrorist”,”Saddam’s WMD program”,”Genocide in Iraq”,”Haliburton”,”Bush’s ties to Oil industry”,”the Surge”
and it is amazing how little the person who screams the loudest knows about any of these subjects.They pretty much parrot hollywood and John Stewart.

This is why a Senator from Chicago who has accomplished nothing and shown incredibly bad judgment whether it be Rev.Wright,Ayers,negotiations with foreign terrorist dictators, or the surge, is being touted as the savior of the world and getting closer and closer to being the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.

Problem is all the butt kissing and spinning in the world can not cover up him reversing the gains in Iraq,possibly starting a war in Pakistan,letting Iran acquire Nukes,pushing Isolationism,and taxing this nation into a “real” recession.

Baxter Greene on July 21, 2008 at 11:25 PM

he wont vote for McCain then no reason to post here..

Chakra Hammer on July 21, 2008 at 8:59 PM

I had not realised that you had to be voting for McCain to be allowed to comment here. When was that rule passed?

flenser on July 22, 2008 at 12:19 AM

Nobody should feel one bit sorry for Juan “Z-Visa” McCain and the NY Slimes. They helped carry him to the Republican nomination. Screw both of them!!! The NY Slimes is circling the drain brother. Who cares what they say???

DfDeportation on July 22, 2008 at 1:35 AM

McCain’s campaign organization should sue if the entire NYT budget does not show up in FEC reports as a corporate contribution to the Obama campaign.

Then they should press FEC to pursue illegal corporate campaign contribution (I’m sure the going rate for that much coverage is over $2600) charges against the NYT!!

landlines on July 22, 2008 at 2:28 AM

The McCain rebuttal op-ed is a very effective piece, and that is why the New York Times rejected it.

Contrast the rejection of the McCain rebuttal op-ed with the publication of the MoveOn.org attack on the gifted General Petraeus.

The New York Times should be ridiculed constantly; at that paper, they are not journalists but rather nothing more than pretentious left wing propagandists.

Phil Byler on July 22, 2008 at 4:00 AM

So, what’s new?

Johan Klaus on July 22, 2008 at 10:36 AM

The New York Times should be ridiculed constantly; at that paper, they are not journalists but rather nothing more than pretentious left wing propagandists.
Phil Byler on July 22, 2008 at 4:00 AM

And this is nothing new.

I hadn’t payed attention to the New York Times before, and a few years back I heard some negative reaction to something Ann Coulter said. Something like “too bad timothy McVeigh didn’t take down the New York Times building.” and the people were livid with her advocacy of destroying the building filled with Americans. And at first I wondered who this insane far right idiot was.

I never really liked her all that much, but she is quite justified in most of her statements that are designed to shock and infuriate the left. When you understand where she is coming from, paying attention to what these cretins have been doing for decades … it makes a little more sense as to why she would say this.

The New York Times is one of the leaders of what Bill O’Reilly calls the culture war. They’ve done everything from advocating for and being apologists for every liberal politician, helping to give away America’s secrets to the enemy in the form of identifying classified information that is damaging to president Bush and everything else under the sun.

They are propagandists, and they will never be charged with their many crimes of sedition.

wise_man on July 22, 2008 at 11:00 AM

David Shipley

I want someone to monitor this guy, and please let us all know when he gets swept away in a future round of NYT firings. We’ve got to start noting and celebrating these things.

seanrobins on July 22, 2008 at 11:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 2