New York Times defends decision not to run McCain's op-ed article

Oh, boo, hoo, hoo, hoo!

I actually went to the Drudge Report's site to read the rejected Op-Ed piece. This is a highly representative extract: "To make this point, he [his opponent] 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."

In fact Maliki endorsed Obama's timetable today. But that's not the problem with the piece; rather it's a whiny rebuttal to Obama rather than outlining John McCain's views on how we will achieve victory and, more importantly, know it when we get there. Presumably the aging Senator doesn't expect "the enemy," which comprises a variety of groups, to formally surrender.

McCain was invited to "revise and resubmit." Since his class rank at the Naval Academy was 894 out of 899, me thinks he may be familiar with such requests. The only difference is that now he's got people proclaiming he was the victim of discrimination in the form of "liberal bias."

regardless of how you feel about a candidate, a newspaper's job is to report news. Almost all of them have an opinion column which could refute his piece. Its dangerous when the media practically assist a presidential candidate. Its really no different than political censorship and I would prefer to have even the worst of politicians have their say or don't let any of them have any say at all.

The only difference is that now he's got people proclaiming he was the victim of discrimination in the form of "liberal bias."" it is biased, no matter which way you look at it.

Why waste column inches on the guy who's going to lose anyway

Since his class rank at the Naval Academy was 894 out of 899, me thinks he may be familiar with such requests.

Nice propaganda.

a newspaper's job is to report news. Almost all of them have an opinion column which could refute his piece. Its dangerous when the media practically assist a presidential candidate.

Somehow I think el Rushbo and his loyal listeners would disagree with you there. In fact the NYT's has two regular columnists who are reliably conservative, David Brooks and William Kristol.

McCain's had six Op-Ed pieces published over the years in the NYT's and the prospect of a seventh if he can make the suggested revisions.

Shipley wrote that McCain’s article would “have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory—with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate.”

Seems a bit silly to require a candidate to give a timetable on Iraq when their position is that making a timetable that ignores realities on the ground isn't a smart move at this stage. They're basically requiring the senator to reverse his position before they print it.

The NY Times accepted op-ed pieces by Yassar Araftat, but refuses one from the Republican nominee, a genuine war hero of the sort they were saying only three and a half years ago is the only kind capable of leading us in this era.

So the old geezer goes to Drudge, gets a two-fer, and rules the news cycle for the day.

Well done, Senator McCain.

Look, anyone who's ever submitted something for publication knows there are four possible responses: 1) Outright Rejection; 2) Revise and Resubmit; 3) Conditional Acceptance if author fixes minor problems; 4) Acceptance.

Number 2 is tricky because it requires the publication to provide the author with very clear guidelines on the revisions necessary to have the piece accepted for publication. Otherwise you face the prospect of rejecting it a second time after the author has been led to believe it will be published if s/he revises it. Here the editor provided them:

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."

That's exactly what we need to know from McCain; or is he planning to leave a definition of victory up to the Commanders on the Ground?

This is not the kind of change I want to believe in. Everyone understands that the New Yorker cover was satire. Is Obama really this thin-skinned?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/obamas-revenge-emnew-york_n_113969.html

Obama's Revenge:New Yorker Banned From Press Plane

The NY Times accepted op-ed pieces by Yassar Araftat, but refuses one from the Republican nominee, a genuine war hero of the sort they were saying only three and a half years ago is the only kind capable of leading us in this era.

In this regard I asked a Republican on JT why McCain was the wrong man eight years ago but the right man to lead the nation now. Guess what? He never answered just like McCain has never defined victory in Iraq.

In this regard I asked a Republican on JT why McCain was the wrong man eight years ago but the right man to lead the nation now.

Maybe the person you asked wasn't a Republican eight years ago...

I think this decision will hurt the NY Times, and it will further increase the public's perception that the media are intent on getting Barack Obama elected.

The "Gray Lady" (which is nearly insolvent from what I can tell) could not have picked a worse time to highlight the bias. The anchors from all three major networks slobber as they follow Obama's every footstep abroad.

How naive do they take voters to be?

Maybe the person you asked wasn't a Republican eight years ago...

I doubt that, but could you answer my question. Why was McCain the wrong man eight years ago but the right one to lead the country now?

As for the Op-Ed page, another requirement most readers apply is that it be engagingly written. Whining in writing is rather like listening to whining....

Why was McCain the wrong man eight years ago but the right one to lead the country now?

Is he the right man? I'm waiting to see who he chooses to be his running mate. Same for Obama.

How odd that the Gray Lady's defenders all live in such black and white worlds...

The anchors from all three major networks slobber as they follow Obama's every footstep abroad.

Yeah, but when John McCain ventured out of the Green Zone to do a little shopping and, in the process, demonstrate that liberal media bias fails to acknowledge progress in Iraq, he was accompanied by 100 American soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.

Now who's company would you rather have?

Doesn't the NY Times follow the polls? Here is what the well-known Rasmussen site (21 July) is reporting:

The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy involving the Times erupted found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago. Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

I can see why the NYT wouldn't run it. It's poorly written but what do expect from a guy that was bottom of his class.

Especially this bit of tripe,

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.op.ed/index.html

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.

Good Job NYT for not running it, what a bunch of winning er, whining.

Undecided,

Reread SezWho's posts about perception in response to your comments on the Afghan thread. It's no surprise that the consistent (not to mention insistent) right-wing references to "liberal bias" has people believing there actually is one in the press.

The reality is there's a range of opinions in the media and most people seek out those which validate their own pre-existing views. Thus, I don't know any Obama supporter who puts up a fuss about what el Rushbo says about "Barack Hussein Odumbo," as he calls him. Am I supposed to believe he's not biased?

The Washington Times will certainly endorse McCain, so would it be unfair for the New York Times to endorse Obama? My advice is stop complain' and try to raise the profile of the former so it equals that of the latter. Then it might get a wider readership....

It's poorly written but what do expect from a guy that was bottom of his class.

I believe service academies in McCain's day only granted engineering degrees. Even today, the only degrees granted by service academies are bachelor of science degrees. Far cry from the liberal arts orientation of the schools your average NYT reporter drank his or her way through.

Bottom of your class at Westpoint is one thing, bottom of your journalism class at Columbia or U Cal Berkeley another.

It's no surprise that the consistent (not to mention insistent) right-wing references to "liberal bias" has people believing there actually is one in the press.

There is a left leaning bias, most of us have known that instinctively for years.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

My advice is stop complain' and try to raise the profile of the former so it equals that of the latter.

My advice is there isn't really a whole lot of suprise that the NYT wouldn't run his Op-ed to those of us that tend toward to conservative viewpoint. Defending their decision with the zeal that the left is doing just re-enforces that viewpoint and I would advise maybe a different tack than that.

I don't think it is unrealistic to ask for timetables. McCain has resisted timetables for troop drawdown, but how about timetables for Iraqi government cohesion? for decisions on oil revenue sharing? for Iraqi control of dissident militia elements? for the return of refugees? for the unwalling of communities? and even, say for winning the war?

At the current time, McCain is planning to win the war someday. It is not too much to ask when that day might be and how we are going to get there. "Someday" is not a plan.

You know I understand how John McCain was disappointed at the answer from the NYT, but you know it sounded as if it was a crybaby letter and it seems that the NYT was keeping McCain from making an ass of himself.

I don't ever remember doing a project with out going in with an objective.

The objective may have changed, but I went in with a plan. < :-)

Having attempted to take the high road in this discussion, I will defer to someone else who has taken the low road:

So maybe [those outaged McCain backers] will get behind the movement to bring back fairness in media laws and we can get some equal time to refute Rush and Savage...yeah that's the ticket...you want to force publication of McSame's cranky crap in the free market of ideas?? Sounds good to me, when do I get my hour in the ring with Mark Levin??

http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/21/mccain_oped/view/?show=all

Are we assuming that the NYT did not also require Obama to make revisions? It seems to me that we are.

This should be a non-issue. All McCain has to do is to produce a credible piece. Why would folks who believe that the NYT is a liberal mouthpiece be interested in reading anything in its pages anyway? And wouldn't a tightly written and well-argued piece serve McCain better among the presumed liberally educated readership?

Or is McCain just complaining for...for...for...um..."political gain"?

All McCain has to do is to produce a credible piece." So, you are all for giving the NYT carte blanche in deciding what is credible and what isn't?

we can get some equal time to refute Rush and Savage" I don't know Savage and I only heard Rush a few times, but isn't his show a cable type radio broadcast? Additionally, I don't think either one of those guys have any type of power to influence and not to mention, I hear McCain isn't what many conservatives want and that neither one is a news media.

I am really surprised you support this.

Are we assuming that the NYT did not also require Obama to make revisions? It seems to me that we are.

I was going to bring that up. Almost nothing is accepted for publication as is, the NYT's probably asked for at least minor corrections (Number 3) according to my typology above. But maybe it was "revise and resubmit," like McCain except Obama obviously made the specified changes.

McCain supporters should be thankful the press isn't very interested in their guy, which some Obama supporters feel amounts to giving him a free pass, or they would make more of errors such as this one:

Asked by ABC’s Diane Sawyer Monday morning whether the "the situation in Afghanistan in precarious and urgent," McCain responded: "I think it’s serious. . . . It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border," said McCain, R-Ariz., said on "Good Morning America."

Iraq and Pakistan do not share a common border, Afghanistan and Iran separate them. If the media were really out to get McCain, they would publicize such a disturbing lack of knowledge rather than ignoring it.

undecidedbout08,

I disagree that everyone knows that the New Yorker cover was satire. There are far too many people everywhere who judge on appearances and hearsay and who are not intellectually curious. We might even have a president like that, not to say that he doesn't know it was satire.

However, I agree that it seems small-minded of Obama to seek revenge on the magazine by not seating its representative--if seeking revenge was what he did. Nonetheless, only 40 journalists could be seated out of 200 applicants. I don't think there is any offense in seating journalists who represent publications that have been less controversial and less potentially damaging.

All McCain has to do is to produce a credible piece." So, you are all for giving the NYT carte blanche in deciding what is credible and what isn't?

For their Op-Page page they absolutely retain creative control, but it's not credibility so much as presenting new information in an engaging way that will draw in readers. No editor will want his Op-Ed page to degenerate into a mud-sling (like so many threads here).

skipthesong,

Basically, yes, I support the NYT in this until I learn otherwise. It seems to me that you are over-reacting to McCain's complaint. The NYT is under no obligation to publish a poorly written piece.

I think there are rules for giving equal time to candidates. However, as neither of these individuals has actually been nominated yet I'm not sure those rules apply now. All McCain has to do is to submit himself to the editorial process he has undergone before and which Obama had to undergo.

Sezwho

Doesn't seem poorly written to me.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.op.ed/index.html

Betzee

Your very first post is the very definition of mudslinging. How many times are going to mention on every thread when his name appears that he graduated in the bottom of his class?

You've slammed him every single chance you get and mud is your speciality that you dress up under 'criticism'. I've read his op-ed your opinion is (suprise)whining. My opinion pretty dead on and valid points made, you can't set a arbitrary timetable when events are the ground are the only realistic way to determine it, thats common sense.

And isn't to bad we had to go to OTHER media outlets to read it???????

Talk about some free positive publicity for the McCain campaign. Good job NYT could have just ran the piece and be done with it, but interesting to see people here defend their decision on the most weakest grounds.

You really think people wouldn't be interested in his response to Obama's op-ed???????

How many times are going to mention on every thread when his name appears that he graduated in the bottom of his class?

I mentioned it twice and both times were relevant. The first time was when he addressed the problem of under-performing students to the NAACP and here, when his Op-Ed piece (which said nothing new) was rejected. How about trying to be a little less defensive, will ya?

I think the right wants it both ways; their outlets are happy to call Obama's wife his "Baby Mama" and refer to him as "Barack Hussein Odumbo." Yet nobody I know of whines for rebuttal time. Get some media outlets that are interested in a higher level discussion and then you won't care that the NYT's returned his piece with a request to "revise and resubmit."

Yet nobody I know of whines for rebuttal time." That works both ways. There are jokes after jokes about McCain's age, roundness, peach face, blah blah and even Cindy has had quite few placed against her.

But, I think you tying the so-called "right" too much towards McCain as I hear a lot that he isn't on their Christmas Invitation Party lists. That's like tying Obama to NOI or the extreme left. I usually let things like that go in and out the other ear.

I just think as powerful as the NYT is, with its influence and all, should let both candidates or others if there are any that will still come out, equal share. I would prefer to have an un-biased media. Sure, stations and shows can have their own, but when a media outlet that claims to speak for all voices, well, they ain't.

I just think as powerful as the NYT is, with its influence and all,

That's something it earned on the basis of its reporting and news coverage. Other publications, such as the Washington Times, can marshal their resources and challenge its stature. No editor is going to last long at any publication if s/he either accepts or rejects submissions based on vague criteria.

I actually read the NYT's Op-Ed every day. But I would cease doing so if it were filled with rebuttals or acrimonious exchanges. Somebody obviously told the McCain campaign, "You're best shot of winning is to make it about Obama not yourself." The rejected Op-Ed piece was long on criticism of Obama's proposals and light on the specifics of McCain's plan to achieve victory.

Today from Maine McCain reiterated, "He has absolutely no military experience." OK, does that mean we should go with the candidate who talks about the problems on the Iraq-Pakistan border when they don't even share one?

skipthesong - You do have a good point here. The fairness of reporting, etc.

Was Obama ask to submit another version?

Then I read the other article where Condi so conveniently told American embassies to only give limited aid, etc., to candidates. I can't find any reference to this being issued when John McCain was overseas.

I'd like to see a fair government, also. < :-)

aday: and I haven't found where Obama's stuff was rejected either.

If you are going to support the NYT because his article was bad, fine, but refusing to run an article based on political agenda is scary and ain't even a supporter of McCain. I really don't know crap about him.

I personally am concerned. I have had a subscription with the NYT - I'm canceling it now. Don't forget, not too long ago the NYT was found to not only have reporters plagiarize articles, but also make stories up.

If you want fairness in a government, you need to let all sides run. Bad enough any worthwhile independent is never given any space leaving us with only two sides.

David Shipley, an op-ed editor at the newspaper

Biased and a fair decision on Mr. Shipley's part not to run it?????

Mr. Shipley's bio at the NYT

Mr. Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter. He had been the executive editor of The New Republic Magazine from 1993 until 1995.

Case closed on this one.

aday;

Given Mr. Shipley's background I think I'm pretty safe that Obama wasn't asked to submit another version after his original to be published in this fine non-biased paper.

damn sailwind, that's some dirt! Even though I am not cheering for the repubs, I have to still say - Slaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaam!

Just for the record, his the third bio down on the NYT's link.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/editorial-board.html

I'd have to say I was rather shocked at that also when I found out about him. I was just doing a google news search about this to get a feel of what the rest of the papers in the country felt about the NYT not running it and ran across Mr. Shipley's background.

Most of the editorial boards of other major dailies by the way express some sympathy as to to the reasons why the NYT wouldn't run it, however most state they would have run the op-ed in fairness to McCain as a response to Obama's piece without any 're-writes'.

A remarkably poor decision by the NYT. Regardless of the "quality" of the piece, the NYT does itself a tremendous disservice (a mortal blow to it's already tattered reputation for objectivity) while insulting the Republican candidate for the Presidency of the United States. It is common practice to reject articles from nomindated presidential candidates? I doubt it. If the piece really does contain "no new ideas" (and did Obama's piece truly do so either?), then they should have published it, and let the differece between the two pieces be judged by the readership. If the paper has an opinion (which it is certainly intitled to, indeed, perhaps required to have) then it should have expressed itself on the Editorial page, not the cutting room floor.

Has anyone taken a look at their stock price? They keep things like this up, and they might as well just go to completely on line.

sailwaind: How many times are going to mention on every thread when his name appears that he graduated in the bottom of his class?

Betzee: I mentioned it twice and both times were relevant.

Anyone agree with this? Sez is an automatic, but I'm curious about everyone else.

The NYT's is under no more legal obligation to give equal space to McCain than Rush Limbaugh is to allot air time to Barack Obama; they are both private entities which exercise control over their own material. For some time people have been urging Obama, the former editor of the Harvard Law Review who has a background in writing, to make a statement about where we go from here on Iraq. He did in the NYT's.

McCain then submitted an Op-Ed piece in which he wrote: “I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war — only of ending it… 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.”

To get it published McCain needs to explain how we will arrive at that victory and when we will know it's time to leave. He agrees "if we leave to soon our gains could be revised." OK, then how will we know when we're past that point? (I asked that question here and no one answered it).

The NYT's did publish his Op-Ed piece in March 2003, "The Right War in the Right Place." He claims to have been right on Iraq; but his time line of the war starts in the summer of 2003 to avoid including statements such as "The end is clearly in sight" which the Senator made on April 9, 2003. McCain obviously revised that and he can revise his piece for publication to include something new.

Jonah Goldberg, a conservative columnist on the LA Times Op-Ed page, nails McCain's conundrum here and articulates the implications very well:

If it were going worse [in Iraq], McCain's Churchillian rhetoric would match reality more. But with sectarian violence nearly gone, Al Qaeda in Iraq almost totally routed and even Shiite Sadrist militias seemingly neutralized, the stakes of withdrawal seem low enough for Americans to feel comfortable voting for Obama. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's support for an American troop drawdown undoubtedly pushes the perceived stakes even lower.....

McCain doesn't need to explain why he'd be a better commander in chief. Voters already acknowledge his superior judgment on foreign policy by huge margins. He needs to explain why, going forward, we'll need that judgment.

Now there's an Op-Ed piece for him....

Jonah Goldberg, a conservative columnist on the LA Times Op-Ed page, nails McCain's conundrum here and articulates the implications very well:

Nah, the conundrum is the surge is working. Obama is now benefiting from it and wants it both ways. McCain supported it agaisn't all opposition and was called a "warmonger" at the very least and a lot more then that the worst.

Obama is just damn lucky the surge worked and the Iraqi Government now feels strong enough to impose conditions for eventual drawdown of troops.

And the man still hasn't said he made a mistake in opposing the surge the very one that allows him to be in the position he is now 'having it both ways' as to his policy.

Sad the man can't acknowledge that, it would seal the deal with me if he would as to why I should vote for the guy.

And the man still hasn't said he made a mistake in opposing the surge the very one that allows him to be in the position he is now 'having it both ways' as to his policy.

But he was right in questioning whether the evidence against Saddam necessitated a preemptive strike. Most Americans now disagree with John McCain's original stance, "the right war in the right place." Rather than uniting us, there's dissension on whether the drop in violence provides the opportunity to make an honorable exit (particularly since that's what the Iraqis want).

For those who do not wish to set a departure date, I repeat my question (grammatically corrected), namely if we leave too soon our gains could be reversed. OK, then how will we know when we're past that point?

OK, then how will we know when we're past that point?

When our Commanders on the ground say we are as McCain has said all the time and Obama has left enough wiggle room to agree with same.

So far they say not yet but soon enough, Damn proud of our troops myself for getting this far.

Sailwind,

To his credit, Senator Obama voted against the invasion in the outset. Whilst the surge has indeed reduced the level of violence, I don't see how it can honestly be classed as an achievement when the invasion itself was the root of a surge strategy being necassary to control the rampant violence.

"To his credit, Senator Obama voted against the invasion in ( at ) the outset"

In other words, he voted to keep the dictator in power.

No, he voted against creating un-known amounts of cadavers. Which you have.

sailwind,

McCain's piece was not poorly written in that it had spelling and punctuation errors, lacked subject/verb agreement, failed to use paragraphs or was not coherent.

It was poorly written in that it did nothing but attack, sometimes snidely, Obama's position without putting forth a specific counter position. McCain in this op-ed piece has added nothing new. We know why McCain disagrees with Obama. The NYT was right to request a higher level of discourse.

skipthesong,

Just because you cannot find that Obama's op-ed piece was not sent back to him for revision does not mean it didn't happen. Most authors that I know do not go public with rejections, especially when they can make the required corrections and gain an acceptance.

So why is McCain going public with his rejection? He could make the requested changes to the best of his ability or else refashion his op-ed piece to include a cogent explanation as to why all the things that NYT asked for were impossible.

Triumvere,

McCain is not the nominated candidate. He is the presumptive nominated candidate.

McCain obviously revised that and he can revise his piece for publication to include something new.

Yeah, ink instead of crayons.

SuperLib,

Thanks for the shout. I guess, however, what would be irrelevant in your post would be your speculation about my opinion.

It's not like you've gone out on a limb and stated your own opinion as to Betzee's comments. But to relieve you of the burden of your own automaticity in your thoughts, I'll share my opinion with you.

You seem to have asked whether Betzee was accurate in her assessment that both citations of McCain's class standing were relevant. My short answer is: "I don't know". And the reason is very simple. I totally missed the first citation.

So let me give you my opinion about the second. You know, McCain is running for the office of President of the US and he is making an issue that his military service gives him the credentials to lead. So, I think it is relevant to put his military record in perspective.

Now, I'm not knowledgeable about the syllabus at the Naval Academy. Offhand, however, I would be surprised if the Academy did not require courses in geo-political sciences. But whether it does or not, McCain's class standing does not particularly argue for excellence in foreign policy insight. Of course, we can argue that he gained this insight elsewhere, but that will not cancel out that McCain makes his military record a centerpiece of his ability to lead.

So, yes. I would say that Betzee's comment has at least some relevance. "How much" was really beyond the scope of your question and the effort that you have put into it. Besides, if you really want to know, I really doubt that McCain actually wrote that piece anyway. My opinion is that he probably outlined it and certainly reviewed and may even have exercised some editorial power. But wrote it? No.

No need to mention that he was bottom of his class. We all know he was bottom of his class. So stop harping on him being at the bottom. Of his class.

Offhand, however, I would be surprised if the Academy did not require courses in geo-political sciences. But whether it does or not, McCain's class standing does not particularly argue for excellence in foreign policy insight.

See my 11.47 AM post (sorry to repeat this,moderator) - -

service academies in McCain's day only granted engineering degrees.

The problem for McCain is that in failing to define victory he allowed his opponent to do it. Maliki signed off on Obama's troop withdrawal time table enabling him to say we can refocus on Afghanistan. Obama, in short, comes across looking presidential while McCain comes across as more and more irrelevant as he sputters around talking about the importance of a military record. I would expect the announcement of McCain's VP to come soon to take the spotlight away from Obama. But it can't be Mitt Romney because he has no military record....

SezWho,

Superlib is not able to compose a post explaining why my two references to McCain's poor standing at the Naval Academy are irrelevant. So he was hoping you would make the argument for him.

In fact undergrad transcripts are a poor predictor of professional success. Yet McCain's clear incoherence (glossed over by the press), in discussing matters as disparate as geography and social security, do raise concerns about his intellect which his poor class standing only serves to heighten. Or is is a matter of age? Neither augurs well for a stint in the White House given the increasingly complex and fast-moving world we must navigate in.

H O W E V E R,

It is NOT the place of the New York Times to dictate a Presidential Candidate of what he should or can not say ! !

It's very clear that, once again, the NYT is a left wing paper that is dictating of what Senator McCain will say.

And even suggesting to follow Obama ! ! That's totally absurd! !

They might as well suggest that he should include some notes from Karl Marx.

Middle America will not listen to such 'high-nose crap'. It exposes, once again, the crap that the NYT will put out.

Since it is the Clinton's paper, the left-wing propaganda is spewing out. They will not survive because the USA is better than that ! !

The NYT DOES NOT REPRESENT the USA.

Zurg,

Granted the NYT does not represent the USA, but what media does? For all your yelling you seemed to be caught up in the deluded idea that there should be some representative media. So would Fox News pass muster? How about the Wall Street Journal? Or the Washington Post?

Who or what constitutes as being representative of America?

undecidedbout08,

I read the post shortly after you made it. Now I've read it again. I'm not sure what the relevance is of your belief that service academies in McCain's day only granted engineering degrees.

If you want to say that McCain had poor engineering abilities, that's fine. If you want to say that McCain's inability to distinguish himself as a student of engineering raises questions about his ability to distinguish himself in any area of knowledge, that's fine. If you want to say that McCain knows nothing about geo-politics because he never studied it, that's fine.

But do tell us what you are trying to say.

Betzee,

I agree with you that class standing is a poor predictor of success. I think, however, there may be a high correlation between success and very high class standing or very low class standing.

I guess I would have to say that McCain's class standing is relevant but not necessarily important.

Zurg,

You are absolutely right that it is not the place of the NYT to dictate what McCain can say. I'm absolutely sure that the NYT would be among the first to agree with you.

However, it is the place of the NYT to accept or reject pieces based upon its own editorial guidelines. The NYT was not dictating what McCain could say, it was advising him regarding what he could not say. In particular it was informing McCain that he could not use its pages as anti-Obama screed while failing to put forth a coherent plan of his own.

Anyway, why would you be worried about this? If the NYT truly is a Marxist/Leninist publication that is devoted to the destruction of America, I'm sure that no self-respecting patriot would bother to read it. Certainly, McCain himself would be tainted by any contribution he might make to it.

What Sez sez.

Granted the NYT does not represent the USA, but what media does?

You're bummed about the recent demise of the Weekly World News, too, eh?

SezWho,

Many people who've been quite successful in politics have not been academic overachievers. Dan Quayle came into the national spotlight as a dunderhead and never escaped the stigma. But he had the rare ability to make fun of himself. Now we wouldn't have wanted him in the top job but he was quite effective in the Senate and it's perhaps unfortunate his career there came to a premature end.

It is funny to read the fuming on this thread. Many denounce the NYT's as a bastion of liberalism, no Marxist-Leninism, yet it's clear they covet the status that it confers.

Betzee,

I think you're right. The Marxist/Leninist comment was a bit of hyperbole, but it does pick up on Zurg's embittered comment about requiring McCain to include notes from the author of Das Kapital.

As far as political success is concerned, there is no question that what you say is correct. Yet having political success and the ability to formulate constructive policies are different things, I think.

As far as political success is concerned, there is no question that what you say is correct. Yet having political success and the ability to formulate constructive policies are different things, I think.

I don't think our country can survive another president who cannot "think on his feet" as they say. Nobody can master every subject; that's why they have aides and in-house expertise. But at this late date for someone claiming foreign policy expertise to confuse Sunni and Shia is troubling. Now McCain admits economics are not his strong suit. But he gave the impression, in answering a straight forward question, that he doesn't understand how social security works, calling the system "disgraceful." Can we afford such leadership?

It is funny to read the fuming on this thread. Many denounce the NYT's as a bastion of liberalism, no Marxist-Leninism, yet it's clear they covet the status that it confers.

Walter Duranty's white-washing of Stalin's engineered famines in the Ukraine (which amounts to a form of holocaust denial) and recent protests in front of the NYT building by concerned survivors and Ukranains aside, I don't regard the NY TImes as Marxist. (Though if I were a stockholder I might...)

I resent the hypocrisy.I resent the NYT trying to pretend they are objective and fair. Arafat and Hamas have been given a voice on their pages. But the presidential nominee of the Republican Party, tied with his opponent, is denied the same? This is madness.

If you couple all the top secret anti-terror measures they have made public these last few years with what 'the newspaper of record' tried to do to John McCain, it makes clear a discouraging fact the American electorate must face-- there is an institutional bias in our national media, and these organizations, the beneficiaries of laws that guarantee freedom of speech, are apparently happy and willing to side against those who provide for this freedom.

undecideabout08,

McCain is not the presidential nominee. Granted that appears to be but a formality, but it is a significant one.

McCain has not been denied a voice on the NYT pages. In fact, he has previously been published at least 6 times in op-ed pieces there. He has been asked here to clean up his piece. There is no right to write whatever one wants.

McCain was endorsed by the NYT in his candidacy to become the Republican nominee. What do you imagine that the NYT "tried to do" to him?

It is far from clear who provides for freedom of speech. The NYT, however, sides with those who protect it.

sezWho2,you wrote that

He has been asked here to clean up his piece.

As I understood the story it wasn't about cleaning up his op-ed, it was the NYT politely dictating what they want now that they have both candidates where they want them.One gets a free ride, the other has to toe a line. A former Clinton speechwriter told McCain "what would work" for the speechwriter-now-editor:

“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,”

It is far from clear who provides for freedom of speech. The NYT, however, sides with those who protect it.

For you, yes, it is undoubtedly far from clear.Given your views on the New Yorker cover tea-cup tempest I doubt you believe most Americans are deserving of free speech.

There is no right to write whatever one wants.

One gets a free ride.

How do you know this? When the NYT's explained it wanted a companion piece to Obama's they meant something which set forth McCain's own views. Then their readership can compare and contrast the two approaches. As someone who actually reads the NYT's Op-Ed page, I want to learn about McCain's own plan for Iraq not why he finds Obama's plan wanting.

When the NYT's explained it wanted a companion piece to Obama's they meant something which set forth McCain's own views.

I guess it's just me. Elections should be competitions. I don't want an opinion piece from the Republican nominee "mirroring" or simply responding to what the Democrat nominee wrote.The NY Times puts itself above the voting public when they dictate the terms,especially at this juncture.

Shipley: '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.'

I don't want an opinion piece from the Republican nominee "mirroring" or simply responding to what the Democrat nominee wrote.

Then you are in agreement with the New York Times. They rejected it on those grounds; they want a parallel piece the bulk of which is devoted to McCain's own views not attacking those of Obama.

I'm willing to bet most of the posters weighing in here never read Obama's piece. But why should that stop anyone from expressing outrage?

One gets a free ride, the other has to toe a line.

Since you didn't explain on what basis this assertion was made I can only assume it was personal speculation presented as cold, hard, fact.

The only issue is whether the Times applies its standards equally to all submissions. Whether Obama’s was rejected and revised is irrelevant as long as the same standards were applied (perhaps his piece did not call for revision?) Equal application is not the same thing as identical outcome. There is no way to know the answer to this since we are not privy to the content of all submissions and rejections.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/the-times-and-the-mccain-op-ed/?scp=1&sq=mccain%20op-ed&st=cse

The "fairness doctrine" is, of course, nonsense, and the NYT is under no leagal obligation to publish the piece. But, it is irresponisible not to do so considering their position (or perhaps, now, apiriation) as the "paper of record". The consequences will come in the correct form, that is a further loss or reputation and revenue, as opposed to some sort of government sanction.

The problem with the "quality" arguement is that it is extremely subjective, and lends itself heavily to both the appearance and the inevitable actualitiy of bias.

In otherwords, better to give McCain the rope to hang himself with.

In otherwords, better to give McCain the rope to hang himself with.

Presumably news of the rejection was released by the McCain campaign, not the NYT's. And they probably got exactly the reaction they wanted from people who never read the NYT's: "war hero John McCain was treated shabbily by the liberal press which is trying to do in his campaign."

Judging quality is a subjective process, particularly for work that falls outside conventional boundaries. Based on their standards, however, the rejection is quite defensible (except to those who never read the Times and probably didn't read Obama's piece.)

undecidedbout08,

I guess what we're going to have is a semantical argument about what it means to clean up one's piece. As I observed previously, I am not referring to spelling, grammar and punctuation. I am referring to the act of taking an opinion which is not newsworthy and creating one which is.

Obama's piece was newsworthy because he expressed specific ideas about what he would do as President. While he mentions McCain 3 times, he does so in clear contrast of policies, past and future. If you want to refresh your memory about his piece, you can find it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?8qa

McCain's piece, on the other hand, contains no new ideas about what he would do as president. Referring to Obama 10 times in a slightly shorter piece, McCain's focus is obviously on attacking Obama and not on laying out a vision for the future. If you want to contrast this with Obama's published op-ed, you can find it here:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.op.ed/index.html

The NYT did not dictate how McCain had to rewrite the piece. It was editorially helpful by suggesting an approach that would allow it to publish his views. That was a suggestion, not a requirement. If McCain's crowd cannot take the suggestion and cannot think of an alternative, it suffers from a woeful lack of creativity.

I don't know what you think my views on The New Yorker cover are. I always find it problematic when people do not have the decency to attempt to restate someone's views and rely instead on innuendo. However, since you brought it up, I happen to believe that most Americans, in fact all Americans, and I daresay all people everywhere are deserving of free speech.

However, this is not a free speech issue. As we can well see, McCain has been quite successful in making himself heard.

I doubt you believe most Americans are deserving of free speech.

It only becomes a freedom of speech issue if the government tries to silence someone's voice. The NYT's is a private newspaper that has final authority on what appears under its mast head. Obviously it must be the gold standard, else why all the whining?

The New York Times is so far left of center Denise Kucinich could be the major stockholder. As Ms. Betzee says, the NYT is a private newspaper and they can pretend to be an unbiased souce of news as much as they want.

On the same topic, John McCain wants your vote on which news media video loves Barak Hussein Obama more: http://www.johnmccain.com/video/love.htm

As Richard Cheney so succinctly put it, "Vote or die!"

USAR

It doesn't matter whether the NYT is center, right, left or how far from center in either direction. The issue is that McCain's article was not newsworthy. The editors offered constructive suggestions which McCain was free to either follow or improve upon. Instead he chose to whine.

"Whine"?

McCain's folks seem to think the media bias for Barack Hussein Obama is so obvious it's funneee.

http://www.johnmccain.com/video/love.htm

USAR

Triumvere,

Yes, quality is difficult to judge. But there is ultimately no way to avoid bias. Even if a newspaper were to publish everything that was presented to it, that would not be a guarantee of non-bias. Special interests can always flood the submissions and the record would be biased by default.

Suppose instead that McCain had penned the following:

Barack was a black man. Barack wanted to be Chief. Barack came to my house and Asked for war relief. I went to Barack's house. Of course he wasn't there. But I've had experience so I'll win fair and square.

Should the NYT ignore such doggerel and publish just because McCain was supposed to have written that? I think the answer is obviously, "No!" So, somewhere along the line quality standards must come into play.

This is not about publishing things just because certain people write them. This is about publishing interesting things that people write. Bottom line: Obama's piece--interesting because it amplified what he would do as president; McCain's piece--uninteresting because it simply attacked Obama.

I know that McCain supporters agree with McCain's criticism and that they think it newsworthy just because McCain made it. I think they are the ones who are biased, however, if they cannot detect the differences between the two articles.

Mister Sez, the NYT is biased to The Left.

So what?

You don't have to make excuses for them. It's what they do.

USAR

Moderator: Please address other posters by their correct user name.

Obviously it must be the gold standard, else why all the whining?

Obviously you don't own stock in the paper.

I don't think McCain's supporers here are whining,if nothing else because it's apparent to most that McCain came out on top. And he used Drudge to get there. In fact I'd wager he probably impressed quite a few younger independent observers of this campaign who thought his staff lacked the internet savvy it'll take to win.

USARonin,

Yes, whine. McCain chose complaint over revision. He made a decision that he would get more traction by taking his perceived slight public than he would by meeting the editorial standards of the paper to which he sought to submit his thoughts. How dare the NYT seek to edit McCain!

Yes, McCain's folks put together a little snippet of talking heads and asked you to choose between "You're Just to Good to be True" and "My Eyes Adore You". Yes, it's possible that there is widespread media bias. It's also possible that McCain is that uninteresting, that boring, that wrong or that bad for America.

If it's any consolation, I think that McCain would be the darling of the media if he were running against, say, Rudy Kucinich.

USARonin,

You say that the NYT is biased to the left. I say that it doesn't matter. That wouldn't be an excuse. That would be a refutation of the notion that bias necessarily implies lack of fairness.

Note also that the NY Times didn't make a fuss of it. It's McCain who made it public. He's obviously looking to get mileage out of this in the red states, which tend to be less educationally accomplished and read great newpapers like USA Today.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/07/is-the-media-trying-to-elect-obama.html

Former Clinton spokesperson Dee Dee Myers, evidently a McClellanish shrew of some kind, freely admits the media is in the tank for Obama; even provides facts and figures.

undecidedbout08,

I think what Dee Dee Myers is saying is that media is excited about Obama, excited about the potential for change and that it covers him more than it does McCain. I don't think that she is saying that it is "in the tank for" him. Nowhere does she use that expression. Perhaps if you could quote a synonymous expression?

Part of that is McCain's fault. If he cannot generate enthusiasm for his ideas, for his policies and for his candidacy now, it raises a question as to how strong his leadership would be if president. In other words, why blame the media for being biased? Why not blame McCain for being boring?

There's no doubt that the media favors Obama. But since I support him, I'm going to leave that to others to fight. The only thing I can promise people is that I won't insult their intelligence and say that the bias doesn't exist, or that it's just, or that there's just no way to tell.

the NYT was a cheerleader for the iraq invasion and hired journalists that were essentially plants for the Rove/Cheney propaganda campaign.

The US press is vastly republican and almost solidly conservative. Fox news is a republican lie factory. Radio is 99.% rightwing, sometimes rabidly so in the case of Limbaugh and Savage.

The winger whiners love to tell themselves over and over again about the liberal press but it does not exist. They just love to play the victim over and over again. Its one of the republican favorite things to do, second to lying.

"The US press is vastly republican and almost solidly conservative."

Bwahahahahahaha...

George Dubya just read this and in between raucus guffaws he says you have a "fantastical" sense of humor.

He also added, "Stop it! Yer killin' me!", I think.

USAR

Nessie

He's obviously looking to get mileage out of this in the red states, which tend to be less educationally accomplished and read great newpapers like USA Today.

I think the red states are pretty balanced on that one.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

"Presumably news of the rejection was released by the McCain campaign, not the NYT's. And they probably got exactly the reaction they wanted from people who never read the NYT's: "war hero John McCain was treated shabbily by the liberal press which is trying to do in his campaign."

Judging quality is a subjective process, particularly for work that falls outside conventional boundaries. Based on their standards, however, the rejection is quite defensible (except to those who never read the Times and probably didn't read Obama's piece.)"

But isn't this entirely the point? They could have saved themselves both the massive reputation hit and denied McCain the political points by just publishing the damn thing...

Look, I'm not saying that McCaine should be able to print tripe, or that the NYT should be required to allow itself to be used as McCain personal springboard every time he wants to attack Obama. I'll admit to having read neither piece, but I find it hard to believe the gleeful assurances of some of our more left-leaning posters that McCain's piece is not fit to print.

They should have published it, and then, if it truly lacks any new ideas, they should have followed it up with an Editorial to that point. You are allowed, indeed required, as a newspaper to have an opinion on the Editorial page.

If they had done it that way, McCain would have had his say, got his fair shake, and the Times would have come off as a fair, honestly liberal paper. Instead, the Times comes off as petty, and dishonestly liberal, McCain looks like he is getting screwed over by the press, and the pubic is deprived of hearing all sides (at least in the pages of the Times, that is.) How is this a win for anyone? (other than, perhaps, as you say, McCain.) I find it hard to believe that the NYT is adhearing to some kind of higher principle here.

Most complaints about the press's coverage are about working the refs in hopes of gaining a future advantage, and for the right, complaining about the press is also a time-honored ritual. The "liberal media" is one of the enduring bogeymen of the conservative movement. Nothing will help rally the right to McCain faster than the New York Times rejecting a McCain column on Iraq after running one by Obama. But alleging media bias also helps the McCain team make a broader case against Obama: that he hasn't earned the presidency. They see their rival as an inexperienced liberal who has rarely crossed party lines, has barely accomplished anything, and is cruising to the White House because of lofty rhetoric. Saying the media is helping him out implies Obama needs the help. [Save the lofty rhetoric part and switch liberal for conservative, essentially the same case was made against GWB in 2000, and it failed.]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/07/23/mccain/

But isn't this entirely the point? They could have saved themselves both the massive reputation hit and denied McCain the political points by just publishing the damn thing...

The Times reputation took a hit when it was discovered Judith Miller's doomsday columns about Saddam's WMD had been fed to her by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. That was shabby reporting.

On this I think their readership has largely supported them. But the issue itself is quickly becoming irrelevant as events in Iraq transpire. Tom Friedman captures this:

McCain, who called the surge right, may get little credit, because the story now is about post-surge Iraq. McCain’s post-surge view — which also may be right — is that Iraqis still do not have the military force capable of protecting their homeland and need more U.S. help in nation-building. Meanwhile, Obama, who was not a surge supporter and simply stuck to his 16-month withdrawal timetable, finds himself — by luck or smarts — in perfect harmony with the post-surge mood in Iraq. His timetable may be too short, but Obama can worry about that later.

All of which suggests that the right position on Iraq today is probably “McBama” — stick to a clear withdrawal timetable because post-surge Iraqi and American politics will tolerate nothing else — but leave yourself some wiggle room if things keep getting better, but not exactly on schedule. Always remember: the more Iraq is seen as succeeding on its own, without U.S. scaffolding, the more positive impact it will have on the neighborhood.

The "liberal media" is one of the enduring bogeymen of the conservative movement.

Is it really a "bogeyman" is the majority of journalists self-identify as liberals? The way I see it, the only reason something as "fair and blanced" as Fox News exists, is because the supposedly "objective" tradtional media outlets have excluded conservative view points to the point that the market naturally created a counter-balance.

It's ok for the NYT to be liberal, but its not ok for them to pretend that they aren't.

I guess the major issue here is how increadibly difficult it is for anyone to be "objective". One interperates the news through one's own political biases. Thus those outlets that echo you world view are the ones that appear "fair" and "objective" to you, while those that oppose it seem "obviously biased".

As a centerist, it would be nice to see a forum where opposing views are brought together and debated (the only way I can see to approximate objectivity), but most of these outlets are intelectual echo chambers, which reinforce and applify the journalists ingrained political biases pushing them ever toward the extremes.

Triumvere,

I think McCain got a fair shake. He just didn't like the numbers on the dice and didn't want to play anymore.

SuperLib,

Who says bias does not exist? Bias always exists among human beings. That's why it's folly to lower your standards just to appear to be unbiased.

I don't support Obama, but anyone can compare the two pieces and judge newsworthiness. McCain's "op-ed" was little more than an attack on Obama.

It's ok for the NYT to be liberal, but its not ok for them to pretend that they aren't.

Most of their readers probably are liberal. And the NYT's wouldn't remain in business without catering to its readership. But last year it hired William Kristol, a neocon, to write a weekly column. Another columnist, David Brooks, is also a conservative (and his columns are thought-provoking).

I would assume the Washington Times would have run McCain's Op-Ed in its current state. By shopping it to the New York Times he was trying to reach a different readership (which its editors don't have to subject to pieces they feel are not up to standards simply to "be fair".)

McCain would have enjoyed more success in convincing NYT's readers he was the better candidate if he had followed their revision guidelines and resubmitted the piece to emphasize his own plans rather than his criticism of Obama's.

Here's an excellent (and critical) letter to the editor in response to Obama's Op-Ed. Yet it only needs to be slightly reworked to apply to McCain's plan since he has publicly speculated the troops can come home by 2013.

Senator Barack Obama’s “plan for Iraq” is not so much a plan as a lawyerly attempt to paper over the difference between his stated position and what the reality in Iraq may require.

Senator Obama’s stated position was and is that he will begin removing combat troops from Iraq immediately upon taking office and complete the process within 16 months. He has never told us how the period of 16 months was arrived at and what military analysis supports it. Why not 12 months? Or 24?

Nevertheless, the senator now seeks to temper the rigidity of his position with assurances that he “would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government.” But he does not address the crucial question of whether such consultations might result in an extension of the 16-month withdrawal period. An affirmative answer would drive many of his supporters into a frenzy, but the absence of one deprives his assurances of any meaning.

The thing is, it was written before Maliki signed off on the 16-month plan. By going against the democratically appointed PM's views, McCain supporters confront the prospect of acting against the wishes of the Iraqi people who do not want an open-ended occupation.

Some people seem to be confused by the term "objectivity." One can have objective standards for publication acceptance, specifically is the piece well argued with appropriate evidence addressing relevant issues, etc., and concede publication bias toward one end of the ideological spectrum. Most of our paper is oriented toward this end of the market....

USA

Today was the most centrist

Sail, my point is that USA Today is a cartoon version of a newspaper, with very short stories and lots of color (for the educationally challenged). I wasn't saying it's not centrist. It's written for a much younger reading level than the Times and other papers of record.

The US press is vastly republican and almost solidly conservative.

I like seeing stuff like this. Pointing out such absurdities to my Americans friends who call themselves 'liberals' helps them understand how wacky many,if not most,non-Americans are.

"The US press is vastly republican and almost solidly conservative."

Which post this this gem come from?

But really, it just goes to show its all about personal perspective. Most of the Europeans/Australians/Etc... I have met are convinced the US press is in the bag, nationalistic, and 100% behind the gov't. Meanwhile, the conservatives at home are foaming at the mouth about how the press "hates are freedoms" or some such.

It also highlights the gap between US politics and European politics. Our centers are simply not in the same place.

SezWho2

It is quite or quiet clear that your points are well rehearsed or you would not be defending it so.

As you may already know, the New York Times 2Q profit had dropped to 82 percent.

Keep up the good work. We expect high marks from this. I’m sure we'll be hearing from you again.

Zurg,

On the other hand, your point here is quite unintelligible to me. It seems to be a kind of mix of sarcasm and misunderstanding, but I can't quite make out what you're trying to say about McCain's rejected op-ed article.

The US press is vastly republican and almost solidly conservative

True for the ownership but not for the reporting staff.

It's interesting so many McCain supporters were ready to accept his campaign spin that he was the victim of a double standard. Few, if any, had even read Obama's piece. More troubling, many had difficulty understanding the NYT's suggested revisions. Yet they lost no time in claiming he was a victim. "Fairness" was prized over quality. Few seemed to appreciate equality of opportunity does not mean equality of outcome.

Sadly, this will only encourage McCain to feel he can succeed by playing the victim card which, in turn, reinforces his already evident tendency toward self-righteousness. Soooo, the next time you scoff when somebody cries racism, remember you've done it too.

Betzee,

It seems to me that McCain was a victim of his own laziness. But who says you can't make laziness work for you?

SezWho,

It was probably intended as a serious submission and then when it was returned "revise and resubmit" his campaign managers realized the pay-off in crying "victim." This "I was discriminated against because I am a conservative" excuse has become the white man's race card.

Betzee,

I think you're right. But I think that if the media truly is "in the tank for Obama", McCain's managers have created more long-term damage than short-term benefit, if any. Even now, it seems to me that the attention is focused on what Obama is doing and saying in his trip to the Middle East and McCain seems to be reduced to what amounts to little more than personal attack. Rather like his piece to the NYT.

This "I was discriminated against because I am a conservative" excuse has become the white man's race card.

Just want to check - - are you certain you want to go with that one?

You understand that it includes the admission that among those who are opposed to McCain and conservatives are 'liberals' who have an all too real 'race card' and don't have compunction about playing it...

From the McCain campaign:

"Recently, The New York Times ran an editorial from Barack Obama spelling out his desire to withdraw from Iraq before victory is achieved. When John McCain wrote a rebuttal against Obama’s plan for defeat, the Times refused to print it, citing as their reason, “it would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece.”

What New York Times editors don’t seem to understand is that John McCain doesn’t base his positions on what the liberal media wants, but what he knows to be right for America."

I guess when McCain starts "mirrorin'" Barak Hussein Obama and the NYT, then he'll get some print. I ain't worried about it. The NYT is Leftist and I accept that. I just likes to point their nutty expectations for conservative candidates along with their correspondin' LSD-induced editorial policies.

USAR

There's a whole group of folks who like to point out flying saucer landing sites and irrefutable evidence of extraterrestial visitations, too. Pointing to something doesn't actually mean its there.

The NYT is not "Leftist". It may favor Democratic initiatives more than it does Republican ones, but that does not make it "Leftist" except in the perverse lexicon of hate-mongers. Americans are routinely presented with choices for voting for real "Leftists" and they overwhelmingly refuse.

In this instance, their was nothing nutty about the NYT's expectation that in submitting an article for publication in its pages, McCain was willing to work with its editors on the same basis as other would-be contributors. Neither was there anything nutty about its suggestions concerning timetables and troop levels, particularly as McCain had already alluded to a 2013 withdrawal date. Importantly, however, it did not mandate its suggestions and McCain was free to refashion his piece in any direction that showed new ideas instead of just offering criticism of Obama's ideas.

As for LSD-induced editorial policies, let's not even go there. Otherwise we're going to have to be doing drug tests on everybody who got us into Iraq in the first place.

"The NYT is not "Leftist"."

Good sir, surely you jest.

"Otherwise we're going to have to be doing drug tests on everybody who got us into Iraq in the first place."

I don't know if there's anything left of Saddam to even test.

USAR

USARonin,

It seems to me that you are avoiding the point.

The fundamental point is that, even if it were a "Leftist" organization, the NYT has not imposed any undue burdens on McCain. His "op-ed" piece was not one which set forth his ideas about Iraq. It was a piece that simply dissed Obama while providing nothing of his own. McCain failed to revise his submission in any fashion. He took his dolls and went home.

But the NYT is not "Leftist" and your use of the term is pejorative. If you would like a look at the real leftists in the USA, I can recommend the following page to you:

http://www.broadleft.org/us.htm

I can pretty much assure you that the NYT does not endorse any of these parties. The readers of the NYT are (perhaps) more likely to be on the mailing list of these parties than, say, the regular listeners of Rush Limbaugh. However, I should be very surprised to find that there was any appreciable percentage who voted for candidates on the slate of these parties.

If you want to say that the NYT journalists and possibly editors are liberal, I think that would be fair. "Leftist" is simply hate-mongering. It's what Rush does.

Saddam was not fundamentally responsible for getting us into Iraq. We got there on our own volition and against better advice. There are plenty of living subjects in the USA still available for testing.

Yet another example of the US Media favoring the rightwing . . .

During an interview with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), CBS Evening News host Katie Couric noted that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) said recently that “there might have been improved security [in Iraq] even without the surge” and asked McCain, “What’s your response to that?”

After first calling Obama’s claim “a false depiction of what actually happened,” McCain proceeded to falsely claim that the surge “began the Anbar awakening“:

McCAIN: I don’t know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history.

But in a puzzling move, the CBS Evening News did not actually televise McCain’s false claim tonight. As MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann reported, “CBS curiously, to say the least, left it on the edit room floor. It aired Katie Couric’s question, but in response, it inserted part of McCain’s answer to another question instead.”

McCain flubs again with the facts, he is so much like Reagan it is scary, and CBS covers for his "facts" which in truth were lies with some fancy editing. Yet another example of that liberal media, right guys?

The rightwingers have been repeating to themselves so long that the press is against them that they now believe what they cannot see. Just like WMD in Iraq. The NYTs has Bill Krystal on their OpEd list, one of the original neocon losers. The WSJ editorials are LSD induced rightwing pablum that is wrong nearly all the time with no opposing views at all.

The facts speak for themselves. What is moderate in reality is radical liberal in the eyes of the rightwingers. Like PBS. Compare Rush Limbaugh with PBS. Lies and more lies with a moderate approach which the repubs want to destroy. Its sad that they delude themselves so often and so deeply. But that is why they are wingers to begin with.

SezWho2, The Gray Lady told McCain's people that McCain's rebuttal had to "mirror" Obama's article.

-Kinda takes the meanin' outta the word 'rebuttal', doesn't it?

And what's wrong with Rush? A great American. Michael Medved... Denis Prager (my rabbi)... Great Americans all.

By the by, many liberals consider the use of the word 'liberal' to be "perjorative" so we don't see that a whole lot for years now.

But folks who are largely conservative aren't shy about identifyin' themselves as "conservative".

I like these developments.

They are good. Like fire.

USAR

USARonin,

Nothing is wrong with rebuttal in a debate. Obama and McCain weren't, however, debating. If they had been and McCain's piece had been accepted, then Obama would have had to publish another piece attacking McCain's thin prescription for the future and shoring up the statement of his own plan. Then McCain and so on.

The NYT was obviously not committed to sponsoring a debate. In allowing McCain the opportunity to mirror Obama's piece it made that quite clear. It asked him to, as Obama had done, to soft-pedal the attack machine and to lay out his concrete plan for Iraq in a McCain presidency. Perhaps McCain just couldn't do that.

I don't think that many liberals think that "liberal" is a pejorative word. I think that liberals think that many Americans consider "liberal" to be pejorative. And what's wrong with Rush? He encourages people not to think and is very successful at it.

You understand that it includes the admission that among those who are opposed to McCain and conservatives are 'liberals' who have an all too real 'race card' and don't have compunction about playing it...

Cards are played not by groups but by individuals when they find themselves in bad straits. Both Tom Delay and Rush Limbaugh claimed their tangles with the criminal justice system were not the result of their own choices but the fact they were conservatives. The liberal system can't stand a financially successful conservative.

I believe McCain's campaign staff thought this would work for him too. And judging by the support he received on this thread, it probably did (in the short-term). But do the American people really want to elect a victim to lead them? Don't think so.....

Now the term conservative is mostly associated with stupid. Liberal, with being right almost all the time. Like with Iraq. Some people are fine with being stupid, some people still support bush. Not many any more but some do as they feel they have no choice.

conservatives are like smokers, sure there are lots of them but slowly they just seem to die off. Like on this board, most of the wingers have long since vanished into nothingness.

@ zurcronium: It is? Most people here use the term "liberal" to mean clueless kid who probably doesn't know any better than to go with what's popular. They use that term to say we're a ragtag party with too much inconsistency to be taken seriously.

Despite the fact that for the last 8 years and in almost every conservative administration before that since the end of the second world war, that cluelessness and ragtag decision making has been seen more than speculated, concurrently, liberalism is what's popularly given that stigma... or at least this is what I've seen as I've gone about life living in mostly conservative, and yes real-live bush supporter inhabited neighborhoods.

Now the term conservative is mostly associated with stupid. Liberal, with being right almost all the time.

Can you clarify? In what country is this the case? America has a 'conservative' president/leader. Conservative politicians have these last five years replaced 'liberal' leaders in France, Germany, Canada, Mexico and Italy, among other countries. They appear poised to win in Great Britain...

We're living in the Neo-Cons. Empire, the US, Japan, South Korea...

New York Times is really excellent newspaper.

Different from Washington Post which many Japanese may like.

America has a 'conservative' president/leader.

By what standard is GWB a conservative? He's presided over a growing federal government not to mention record budget deficits both of which are anathema to traditional conservatives (now being elected in the countries you mention).

The Republican Party of today would likely be unrecognizable to Barry Goldwater, a fiscal conservative who challenged the emerging welfare state, who represented the same state McCain does. McCain's challenge is holding the very different groups now under the Republican umbrella together.

Betzee McCain is called as "Socialist".

In my opinion, the division of Liberal and Conservative is based on views on several sectors: 1) welfare system-safety net, 2) market system, 3) target groups for the support, and 4) foreign policy.

Among several sectors, he looks quite overlapping with Liberals.

Yet, his clear distinction of political position is "Foreign Policy, stationing for 100year in Iraq", showing the emphasis on the military to expand their interest, political or economic, even cultural.

He has no intention to accept the different culture and different interests.

In particular, he does not have any idea of "Environmental Protection".

Finally, he is in a moderate conservative line. This is just my idea.

I hope to see a different idea.

let me put this so that even a conservative can understand it.

Bush is the leader of the right wing conservative republican party He has failed at everything he has done with his party in lock step on every issue with only recently a few exceptions Only someone who is five beers short of a six-pack would support failure over and over again. Like McCain it seems.

Liberals on this board have been right over and over again on Iraq, the bush recession, global warming and on and on.

It really is quite simple.

The NYT Times is in the tank for Obama. Why should they publish the other parties`s opinion. The only that the is annoying about this is the dishonesty. Why do these democract activist editors make this ridiculous claim that the NYT is independent? That is truly insulting.

When you are on a steady diet of Rush Limbuagh, Fox News, the Washington Timea and the WSJ editiorial page any idependent news is insulting to the intellegence of those readers.

-this comin' from a guy who's co-workers call 'the walkin' Daily Kos'.

Elliot

Rush is a great American in the sense that he's an example of how far you can go there if your bile outweighs your brains.

this comin' from a guy who's co-workers call 'the walkin' Daily Kos'.

A.k.a., "the Daily Cause I Said So, That's Why."

-Four days later and this is still of interest to anyone?

I'm lookin' for fresh meat on another thread.

Tommy

once again another winger non-issue is laid out for what it is, worthless. But they never give up, as noted above, they just move on to the next non-issure hoping that it will confuse the weak minded. Another swift boating exercise.

The New York Times left wing bias shows itself again for all to see. Heck, who cares, McCain will soon overtake Obama anyway, people wanta patriot, not an appeaser.

People don't know what they want. That's why fear usually plays better than hope.

The New York Times is in the tank for Obama.