I don't know if this was posted yet but the NY Times has turned down an Op-Ed by McCain that was a response to one by Obama regarding Iraq. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.nyt/index.html?iref=topnews [rquoter] New York Times rejects McCain essay (CNN) -- The New York Times has rejected an essay that Sen. John McCain wrote defending his Iraq war policy. The piece was in response to an op-ed from Sen. Barack Obama that was published in the paper last week. In an e-mail to the McCain campaign, Opinion Page Editor David Shipley said he could not accept the piece as written, but would be "pleased, though, to look at another draft." "Let me suggest an approach," he wrote 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. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece." Read McCain's rejected piece In a statement released Monday, The New York Times said it is "standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission." "We look forward to publishing Senator McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously," the statement said. McCain's rejected op-ed was a lengthy critique of Obama's positions on Iraq policy, particularly his view of the surge. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history," wrote McCain, criticizing Obama's call for an early withdrawal timeline. "I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the 'Mission Accomplished' banner prematurely." Watch why the piece was rejected ยป Obama's July 14 essay had taken shots at McCain for not further encouraging the Iraqi government to take control of the country. "Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition -- despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq's sovereign government," Obama wrote in his op-ed. "They call any timetable for the removal of American troops 'surrender,' even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government." Read Obama's essay Shipley, who was President Bill Clinton's senior speechwriter from 1995 to 1997, had advised the McCain campaign that "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." He added that he hoped the parties could "find a way to bring this to a happy resolution." McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said Monday the Arizona senator's position will not change based on the "demands of the New York Times." "John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables," he said. "Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times." The newspaper endorsed McCain for the Republican presidential nomination in January, shortly before the New York primary. In February, after it became clear McCain would be his party's presumptive nominee, the paper published a thinly sourced report that McCain once had a close relationship with a female lobbyist. McCain said he was disappointed in the New York Times piece. The paper said that it stood by its reporting and that "the story speaks for itself." McCain's campaign sent out fundraising appeals based on the article. The article "is particularly disgusting -- an un-sourced hit-and-run smear campaign designed to distract from the issues at stake in this election," McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, wrote in a e-mail to supporters. "We need your help to counteract the liberal establishment and fight back against the New York Times by making an immediate contribution today," the e-mail said in text that linked to an online contribution form on the McCain campaign's Web site. [/rquoter]
So the NYT rejected McCain's piece because it offered only a critique of Obama's views, instead of an explanation of McCain's alternative?
mccain is caught so off guard on this its ridiculous, you would think the surge curtailing violence would be a huge advantage but he's decided to push sticking around and if the the violence is down and the iraqis are requesting withdrawl, he can't win on that issue.
Well, that's obvious. But I'm still unsure why the NYT decided not to print McCain's essay. Nevermind - I just read the article for the thrid time and now I see that they basically want McCain to articulate (like Obama did) his plan. I think that's reasonable. I'd rather here McCain's entire plan than just some senseless grumblings about "history" and "victory".
There was another response somewhere from NYT that basically said politicians' op-eds have to clear a high hurdle for them to print them, and McCain's didn't do so because it was basically just an attack piece about Obama. It said they would be happy to print a McCain op-ed if it instead focused on his own views/plans (that's apparently what Obama's did).
I think the NYT's explanation is part of the discussion. I think it makes sense but in light of NYT's reputation as a liberal rag I think they would've been better off publishing it. All I think this has done is give more fodder for the McCain campaign and conservatives to criticize the liberal media for.
I think intentionally changing your standards for publicity reasons would be a terrible idea. It basically says that they can be badgered into publishing garbage out of fear of being called liberal. That sets a pretty horrible precedent.
I disagree. Any idiot can lamblast obama's plan. Only McCain can really explain his alternative plan.
Unless you live there, what reasoning person reads the New York Times anyway? They forgot the journalistic tenets of accuracy and fairness a long time ago.
You're right, they should learn some journalistic integrity from Rush Limbaugh, Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, and the Drudge Report.
I don't but we are talking their Op-Ed policy and not their news division. FYI I don't consider their Editorial boad trash either.
You raise a good point but I am looking at this more under the idea of equal time for the two leading candidates. As Rhad notes that maybe McCain should explain his plans better but I don't see anything wrong with expressing a critique over your opponents plan, even if you aren't going into detail about your own plans. I've seen the NYT's publish op-eds that were primarily critiques without offering much of counter ideas and I think that is a part of legitimate political debate. I can definately see the other side that the NYT wants to maintain its standard but I don't see that as convincing many and more than likely this will just reinforce their reputation.
I think if the Times has a standard for politicians to clear and McCain has published 6 articles with them he should know better. Perhaps the Times should have said his article needs to mirror his previvious ones or Obama's more, not just Obama's. But McCain's campaign saying that the NYTimes is trying to make him come up with a timetable for withdrawal is quite ridiculous. McCain can submit his piece, he just has to provide a new perspective instead of repeating what's already out there. I can respect the times for trying to do that.
