John McCain gets spiked by the N.Y. Times -- probably to his benefit

John McCain has felt the sting of rejection of what he no doubt considered a finely wrought piece of prose (we know the feeling). But it appears that for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee (and perhaps one of his ghost writers), all's well that ends well.

As first reported on Matt Drudge's Web site, the New York Times rejected an opinion piece submitted by McCain that sought to counter an essay on Iraq by Barack Obama that appeared -- prominently -- on the paper's Op-Ed page July 14.

"I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written," a Times editor, David Shipley, informed the McCain campaign, according to the Drudge item.

Shipley, in requesting a rewrite from the McCain camp, elaborated that Obama's offering "worked for me because it offered new information ... while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans." For a parallel piece to pass his muster, Shipley added, it "would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq."

Shipley may have been on slippery ground in touting the "new information" that Obama had provided; little leaps out in a rereading. Indeed, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee introduced several of his specifics with these phrases: "As I've said many times," and "As I have often said."

Regardless, the Drudge post asserts that the rebuff "has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles."

Well, we imagine the folks in those top GOP rungs couldn't be more pleased than to have a fresh reason to flog a tried-and-true target for conservatives.

More to the point, the flap has called far more attention to the McCain article -- run in its entirety by Drudge --than would have been the case had it cropped up, without fanfare, inside the Times.

Also, ABC News reports that the New York Post may run the piece.

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[COL. A.M.Khajawall [Ret]]

Dear American Citizens and the Press

As a concerned citizen, I consider it is my duty to bring following message to you all.

"We the citizens of the United States of America have the ultimate responsibility to elect the " Right Candidate" to lead our nation, out of our huge present and future internal and external challenges as well as opportunities. This is to prevent depression and isolation in-spite of being the only superpower in the world morally, democratically, economically, and militarily.

We need to consider the "critical qualities and characteristics" of our presumptive presidential nominees at the time we vote.

In my personal and professional opinion the critical considerations are as under:


1. Calm, cool, and collected " temper " [ Presidential Temperament ].
2. Sound and sustained "Judgment and Caliber".
3. "Thought-fullness and togetherness" of purpose and positions.
4. Minimum "ex-poser and exploitation" around "Washington and Washington insiders".
5. Renewed " Vigor and Vision " for our Greatgrand Nation.
6. Foreign policy based on " American Values, Virtuous, Vastness".

Stay informed, stay involved, and stay engaged. Do not allow some partisan media, pundits, pollsters, and perpetual political opinion makers effect your vote in the wrong direction.

Don't be effected and duped by "Psychological Terrorism" that is afflicted upon you all the time.

Long live U.S.A and its diverse but democratic people.

Col. A.M. Khajawall [Ret] MD., ABFM., ABDA.
Chief Consultant: World Wide Porfessional Consultants[WWPC]
Colonel, USAR/MC Combat Stress Control[Ret], Disabled American Veteran and Freedom team.
Consultant Psychiatrist: CA State, Medical Board of California, and Los Angeles Mental Health Department
Address: 7642 Eaglehelm Court Las Vegas NV 89123

[Rodney (Ret.) TBD RNA MBA]

I agree with Col. Khajawall that Britney Spears should be President.

[anonymous]

COL:

With all due respect to your credentials, you've already made this post several times. And, despite your obvious arrogance, you are not in charge of how America votes.

I vote, I am not an idiot, and I resent condescending rhetoric.

Thank you.

[Arthur Lemay]

Since when does a newspaper have any business telling a Presidential candidate what he should put in an Op Ed?

If McCain does not respond in kind to Obama's plans it is because he chose not to. And, to not publish what McCain said is censorship, pure and simple.

I note that Murdock and his WSJ will destroy the NYT if they continue this stupidity.

[jesse]

If you think New York Times is wrong please, read and help to translate this piece:

July 21, 2008 5:43 PM
ABC News' Jennifer Duck reports: Sen. John McCain touted his judgment and experience to a small crowd in Maine as his opponent traveled to Iraq and met with top Iraqi leaders.

When pressed on troops being withdrawn fully in two years, McCain said, "Oh I think they could be largely withdrawn. As I have said we have succeeded. This strategy is not succeeding, we have succeeded. And of course as we all know it has to be based on conditions on the ground."

[TJ]

While the press and MSM monitor everyone else, who is monitoring them. Is there any governing body that monitors them for compliance with a defined set of standards that insures their appropriate role and function in a democratic society?
First, the author of the article in The New Yorker is punished or "censored" by not being allowed to accompany the press corps on the Obama World Tour, cancelling his spot because "we don't have room for you".
Now, The New York Times is censoring an op-ed piece by the opposing candidate. Why not just let it run and let the people who read it figure it out for themselves;i.e., that there is nothing new, that it does nothing to clarify the candidate's judgement of what "victory" is, etc. We hear the same thing over and over again and still have questions, why not let us read it over and over again and still have questions? Wouldn't that speak for itself? Why must there be this unprecedented "censorship" in favor of a particular candidate? I think the differences are painfully obvious without the abetting of the "free press". One would think the press/MSM would have learned their lesson well after the last 2 elections in promoting one candidate over another.....

[Gromit]

Don nailed it. Very few Obama-leaning voters would be swayed by a McCain-Himself op-ed in the NYT. (And very few McCain-leaning voters read the NYT at all, at least its opinion pages.) So this is a minor victory for McCain and yet another unforced error for the Gray Lady.

[Zzz]

What America needs is a strong dose of medicine:"Do not live beyond your means. Eat right and exercise." If a politician wants you to do that, it's a sure way not to be elected. OK, if I'm not part of the solution then I must be part of the problem. With that in mind I suggest that we all
1. Eat healthy foods and not in excess.
2. Exercise.
3. Do not borrow money that you can't pay back to buy things you don't have the money for it in the first place.

Beats bickering, or your money back.

If you think your politician is there to solve your problem, you are beyond hope.

[Drew]

Censorship is when the government censors the media. When a private company (such as the NY Times) selects which articles are worth publishing, it's Capitalism.

I don't really see a problem with asking John McCain how, and maybe even when, the war will end under his command. I would also like to hear what he defines as "victory" in this war.

[Emily Wortham]

Newspapers and the media are suppose to be fair and unpartial in their reporting but the American newspapers and T.V. stations have gone to hell with their bias reporting. The New York Times should be respectful to the candidates for president; instead, the NYT is so darn bias and rude to McCain that they should not be an American newspaper. They belong in Cuba, Venezuela or Russia or perhaps China.

To those of you who think The New York Times stepped over the line, don't buy their newspaper. They are not worthy of your money or attention.

[Mandelay]

So nice to know that in Obama's brave new world, the NYT is in charge of censorship. Thank you Massa Barack.

[anonymous]

Emily,
The media is a special interest group. It attracts individualswho are called to that profession. To ask them to be a different breed then they are, is like asking medical professionals to act like home builders, or bankers, or farmers.
They are a special interest group by their very being and to ask them to behave otherwise is foolish.

To read every word as gospel, now, who's the fool?

Thanks for the reporting, folks. Let us all have grain of salt.

[jdcarmine]

Honestly this is really funny. NYT with readership tanking, Drudge highest readership of anything ever ever. Gee where would one go to get the best coverage. And have that coverage actually stoked by the NYT! The Gray Lady doth protest too much, but only for necrophiliacs. Oh my oh my Arugalites... terribly difficult to be so urbane these days, the bitter masses just don't Get it do they? More salad?

[Garrett]

The interesting thing about some of these comments is that the concept of journalistic standards never seems to enter any one's mind. The NY Times has a duty to its readers (and some of us actually do pay to read it) not to turn a very important page in the paper into free advertising space. The McCain piece reads like some kind of counter-attack commercial. The quote from Mr. Shirley indicates they obviously had a problem with the fact that the piece contained multiple attacks on Obama, while providing no insight into how McCain would solve the problem. It is not fair to Obama, and it certainly is not fair to the readers. McCain is not entitled to free advertising just because Obama had a piece printed in the op-ed page. He has been asked to submit something of equal news value. I'd venture to guess most of the people complaining do not even read the NY Times.

[VJ Machiavelli]

It seems that McCain's Op-Ed piece needed a few changes to meet the motto standard of the New York "Traitor" Times, All the "Treason" thats fit to print"

VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com