NY Times rejects McCain piece

[Ranger12 46]

...tells him what he should say and it should be more like the one that Obama wrote for them. FYI...the editor that rejected it was a former Clinton aide.

Link

(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." Video Watch why the piece was rejected »

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.

advertisement

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.

[TexasTiger 13,158]

So instead of letting McCain run a free negative ad from their Op-Ed page, they asked him to put forth one that focused on McCain's plans. Horrible!!!

...tells him what he should say and it should be more like the one that Obama wrote for them. FYI...the editor that rejected it was a former Clinton aide.

Link

(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." Video Watch why the piece was rejected »

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.

advertisement

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.

[autigeremt 6,779]

Excuse me, Texas Tiger.....but what's your point?

The Obama article was one in the same. It's just another reason to deflect the McCain team and keep it off their pages.

Thank goodness it's the NY Times, who has seen a huge drcrease in subscriptions the last few years. What comes around, goes around.

[TexasTiger 13,158]

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.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...cain-editorial/

Excuse me, Texas Tiger.....but what's your point?

The Obama article was one in the same. It's just another reason to deflect the McCain team and keep it off their pages.

Thank goodness it's the NY Times, who has seen a huge drcrease in subscriptions the last few years. What comes around, goes around.

[TitanTiger 20,544]

Sorry, but McCain is crying over nothing. I know the NYT makes a good bogeyman most of the time, but he didn't do what was asked of him. They said they wanted it to be more like Obama's in that it focused on what the candidate's specific ideas or plans were for Iraq, not just poking holes in the other guy's plan.

Normally, I'd be right there with him decrying the NYT bias, but this time he brought it on himself. Extra points knocked off for whining like a little bitch about it.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I don't see a problem with this. It's not like they said "no we aren't publishing anything from mcCain"

Let him edit it and re-submit.

[TexasTiger 13,158]

The point is for both candidates to put forth their respective plans, and in so doing, they can point out some of the flaws in the other's plan. McCain tried to refute Obama's Op-Ed-- not the assignment.

[WinCrimson 61]

Would the John McCain of 2000 have blatantly gone against the publisher's wishes in an attempt to run a mud slinging ad? As much as anything, it's trivial bobbles such as this that make me leery of a McCain presidency.

And I say this with little love for the NYT. I think they could have handled the situation a little better.

[Ranger12 46]

So, Obama can write a piece bashing McCain's ideas, but McCain can't write an article defending himself and then poke holes in Obama's ideas? Somebody please explain to me how that is not the NY Times being biased.

I guess Obama just had the advantage of being first and getting to attack his opponent, while not offering any real solutions himself, while McCain gets handcuffed. Yeah, sounds like a real fair thing the NY Times did there.

Look, I am not a big McCain lover either, because he does not represent my conservative beliefs as well as I would like. However I like Obama even less and he surely does not represent my values, so I have to vote for the lesser of two evils. That is why you have not seen me in this forum as much as you have in past elections. It is hard for me to defend McCain tooth and nail. But, come on, for the NY Times to basically let Obama poke holes in McCain's plans, but not let McCain defend his plans and not poke back at Obama is ridiculous.

[SouthLink02 8]

I don't get why they say it is bias

Clinton's advisor from his term was just on CNN saying that they turned down NUMEROUS op-ed pieces which Clinton wrote

They apparently do this a lot

[TexasTiger 13,158]

So, Obama can write a piece bashing McCain's ideas, but McCain can't write an article defending himself and then poke holes in Obama's ideas? Somebody please explain to me how that is not the NY Times being biased.

I guess Obama just had the advantage of being first and getting to attack his opponent, while not offering any real solutions himself, while McCain gets handcuffed. Yeah, sounds like a real fair thing the NY Times did there.

Look, I am not a big McCain lover either, because he does not represent my conservative beliefs as well as I would like. However I like Obama even less and he surely does not represent my values, so I have to vote for the lesser of two evils. That is why you have not seen me in this forum as much as you have in past elections. It is hard for me to defend McCain tooth and nail. But, come on, for the NY Times to basically let Obama poke holes in McCain's plans, but not let McCain defend his plans and not poke back at Obama is ridiculous.

The point is for both candidates to put forth their respective plans, and in so doing, they can point out some of the flaws in the other's plan. McCain tried to refute Obama's Op-Ed-- not the assignment.

If I go first and you go second, you need to do more than just respond to my points. Make your own case and in so doing, show why I'm wrong and you're right. But if you go first, should my reply primarily be in direct response to you? This doesn't handcuff McCain in the least.

[AURaptor 1,128]

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. Having said all that, we want to make it crystal clear that we want Barck Obama to be President, and we'll do everything possible we can to ensure this happens. Regardless of how slanted we have to be in our reporting of the news or even if it means cutting the GOP out of having any sort of positive articles , what so ever .

[TitanTiger 20,544]

So, Obama can write a piece bashing McCain's ideas, but McCain can't write an article defending himself and then poke holes in Obama's ideas? Somebody please explain to me how that is not the NY Times being biased.

But that's not what really happened. Obama wrote an article that was mostly about his ideas and plans with a few critiques of McCain's stated ideas included. McCain wrote nothing but an article taking shots at Obama's plan with very little detail on his own plans and ideas. That is why his op-ed wasn't run.

I guess Obama just had the advantage of being first and getting to attack his opponent, while not offering any real solutions himself, while McCain gets handcuffed. Yeah, sounds like a real fair thing the NY Times did there.

If that bore any resemblance to what happened, I'd agree. Most would say it's more advantageous to go last so you see your opponent's strategy and arguments first and thus get to tailor your answer with the benefit of that knowledge. But you still don't get to make the entire article nothing but poking holes in the other's ideas while giving scant attention to presenting your own. What's funny is that you're criticizing Obama for not "offering any real solutions" when this is precisely the problem with McCain's approach on this op-ed.

Look, I am not a big McCain lover either, because he does not represent my conservative beliefs as well as I would like. However I like Obama even less and he surely does not represent my values, so I have to vote for the lesser of two evils. That is why you have not seen me in this forum as much as you have in past elections. It is hard for me to defend McCain tooth and nail. But, come on, for the NY Times to basically let Obama poke holes in McCain's plans, but not let McCain defend his plans and not poke back at Obama is ridiculous.

I read both op-ed pieces. This simply doesn't accurately describe what happened. I can't bring myself to vote for Obama either, but I'm not going to sing along with the choir here just because it's the mean old New York Times and the Republican cries foul. He brought this on himself. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't purposely do this, knowing they'd tell him to rework the thing, then use it to claim bias. But in this case (though not in many others) the bias claim is baloney. He can critique Obama's plan, in the context of presenting his own. The entire article can't merely be taking shots at the other guy, which is what 80-90% of the one he submitted was.

[TitanTiger 20,544]

The Drudge Report ran McCain's op-ed, as submitted to the NYT. While Obama's earlier in the week touched on a few of McCain's arguments, the majority of the article was about Obama's own views and what he would do. If anyone thinks the article below follows a similar pattern, I question whether they understand the English language at all. I guess if you read between the lines you'd gather an implied "stay the course" as McCain's plan, because he never really says what his plans are:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

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.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

He talks about Obama's views the entire time. This is not what the paper asked each candidate to do. And despite claims of bias, he can still have his op-ed published there...if he takes the time to explain his own ideas rather than simply saying what's wrong with the other guy's.

[WinCrimson 61]

Since we now McCain has surrounded himself with Rovians, is this rejected op-ed the direction his campaign is now planning on taking?

I ask because the worst thing McCain could do is become a one trick attack dog. While I vehemently disagree with him on many issues, he's a respected Senator with a very admirable background. He has too much clout to do nothing but stand on the sidelines and proclaim that he's not Barack Obama. For the sake of the campaign, I hope this isn't the theme he now plans on adopting.

[AURaptor 1,128]

Since we now McCain has surrounded himself with Rovians, is this rejected op-ed the direction his campaign is now planning on taking?

I ask because the worst thing McCain could do is become a one trick attack dog. While I vehemently disagree with him on many issues, he's a respected Senator with a very admirable background. He has too much clout to do nothing but stand on the sidelines and proclaim that he's not Barack Obama. For the sake of the campaign, I hope this isn't the theme he now plans on adopting.

Pointing out where your opponent is wrong isn't an 'attack', its factual. The NYT is simply pissed that McCain's aticle is dead on right, and that he points out where Obama fails as a leader. I do hope this is the theme he's adopting, as it shows the vast difference between the 2 candidates, and that one is clearly for progress, while the other is for hoofing it out of Iraq and claiming defeat.

[RunInRed 16,528]

The funny part is - does any one really believe McCain actually wrote this response piece? I smell a ...

Bottom line: McCain is trying to get some coverage during Obama's Middle East trip

[TitanTiger 20,544]

Since we now McCain has surrounded himself with Rovians, is this rejected op-ed the direction his campaign is now planning on taking?

I ask because the worst thing McCain could do is become a one trick attack dog. While I vehemently disagree with him on many issues, he's a respected Senator with a very admirable background. He has too much clout to do nothing but stand on the sidelines and proclaim that he's not Barack Obama. For the sake of the campaign, I hope this isn't the theme he now plans on adopting.

Pointing out where your opponent is wrong isn't an 'attack', its factual. The NYT is simply pissed that McCain's aticle is dead on right, and that he points out where Obama fails as a leader. I do hope this is the theme he's adopting, as it shows the vast difference between the 2 candidates, and that one is clearly for progress, while the other is for hoofing it out of Iraq and claiming defeat.

Give me a break. That isn't the issue and you know it. The issue is, the paper wanted each of them to put forth a concise op-ed on their own plans and ideas for Iraq and McCain didn't do that. That will involve pointing out a few differences, but the focus should be on what you would do, not what you think it wrong with the other guy. I would have told him to rewrite the damn thing too. He can post the other piece on his own site.

[TitanTiger 20,544]

The funny part is - does any one really believe McCain actually wrote this response piece? I smell a ...

Bottom line: McCain is trying to get some coverage during Obama's Middle East trip

Actually, while the thought crossed my mind, it sounds like the way McCain talks to me. I think it was probably an early draft or something simply culled from McCain's stump speeches and polished up a tad. And they possibly left that way (utterly not addressing what the paper asked both of them to address) so he could claim bias when they told him to rework the thing.

[jw 4 au 526]

The funny part is - does any one really believe McCain actually wrote this response piece? I smell a ...

Bottom line: McCain is trying to get some coverage during Obama's Middle East trip

What's even funnier (or it is actually getting sad at this point) is that it appears that you actually believe there is a remote possibility that Obama had anything to do with writing his piece.

[SouthLink02 8]

The funny part is - does any one really believe McCain actually wrote this response piece? I smell a ...

Bottom line: McCain is trying to get some coverage during Obama's Middle East trip

Neither did Obama or Clinton

[autigeremt 6,779]

The funny part is - does any one really believe McCain actually wrote this response piece? I smell a ...

Bottom line: McCain is trying to get some coverage during Obama's Middle East trip

And Obama writes all his rhetoric? Pot and kettle conference I say.

McCain is doing what he should be doing.......telling it like it is.

[autiger4life 3]

Give me a break. That isn't the issue and you know it.

No he doesn't. The only issue he sees is someone upset his buddy McCain and they must be wrong.

[autigeremt 6,779]

Take a little trip, take a little trip, take a little trip up to heaven tonight......