Drudge On NYT and Obama/McCain

[Kathianne]

How can this be construed as 'bias'? :laugh2:

http://drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm


NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET

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

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

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

...

[Kathianne]

Related:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/belief_growing_that_reporters_are_trying_to_help_o bama_win




Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win
Monday, July 21, 2008
Email a Friend Email to a Friend
Advertisement

The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help John 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.

A plurality of Democrats—37%-- say most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the campaign. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe most reporters are trying to help Obama and 21% in Obama’s party think reporters are trying to help McCain.

Among Republicans, 78% believe reporters are trying to help Obama and 10% see most offering unbiased coverage.

As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain....

[red states rule]

How can this be construed as 'bias'? :laugh2:

http://drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm

Only a liberal rag like the DNC Times demand McCain agree with the messiah's positions, and refuse to run a counter viewpoint

[retiredman]

I don't believe that the NYT refused to run a counter viewpoint. They said that they weould love to run a piece that mirrored Obama's, i.e. that was a similar piece that delineated McCain's plan for Iraq....my guess is that the quality of writing was not good enough. I can tell you from first hand experience: engilsh composition is not a highly stressed skill at USNA!:lol:

[hjmick]

The McCain editorial in its submitted form:



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.


The quality of the writing appears to be adequate, at least as good as much of what I read in newspapers today. I am not convinced that Shipley's rationalization to not run McCain's response holds a lot of water, especially if you consider the whole "equal time" aspect of politics and the media. Not printing McCain's response to Obama's editorial is equivalent to giving Obama some free ad space, much like the networks' decision to send their three bigs on tour with Obama while ignoring McCain's trip. More free advertising for Obama and not a peep from anyone. Anyone who doesn't believe that the media is doing whatever it can to get Obama elected isn't paying attention.

[Trigg]

. Anyone who doesn't believe that the media is doing whatever it can to get Obama elected isn't paying attention.

Exactly!!:clap::clap:

[avatar4321]

I don't believe that the NYT refused to run a counter viewpoint. They said that they weould love to run a piece that mirrored Obama's, i.e. that was a similar piece that delineated McCain's plan for Iraq....my guess is that the quality of writing was not good enough. I can tell you from first hand experience: engilsh composition is not a highly stressed skill at USNA!:lol:

I hope you are ready to admit you were wrong and apologize to Senator McCain for your insults.

[retiredman]

I hope you are ready to admit you were wrong and apologize to Senator McCain for your insults.


apologize? shit...nobody EVER apologizes for anything on here...why do you expect ME to start?

McCain says:

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.

I believe that the extremists supported by AQ are inconsequential and irrelevant to Iraq's future...I DO, however, believe that the shiite militias are definitely supported by Iran and that Iraq will become a satellite/client state closely aligned with Iran within a short time after our departure whenever the hell it finally occurs.

[Little-Acorn]

How can this be construed as 'bias'? :laugh2:

http://drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm

You're joking, right? I hope the little laughing-head icon means more this time, than the toss-off it usually is.

Actually I'm not convinced that the entire article, and the NYT's refusal, isn't an entire gross joke of its own.

Here we have a writer, an important one who is running for president and trying to express his views, trying to reply to one op-ed already written and published in the same editorial page by his rival. And a newspaper editorial board is directing him on what he can or can't write in that article, and how he must write it???

It's GOT to be a joke.

[Trigg]

apologize? shit...nobody EVER apologizes for anything on here...why do you expect ME to start?

McCain says:

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.

I believe that the extremists supported by AQ are inconsequential and irrelevant to Iraq's future...I DO, however, believe that the shiite militias are definitely supported by Iran and that Iraq will become a satellite/client state closely aligned with Iran within a short time after our departure whenever the hell it finally occurs.


Well, for one you were wrong. The piece was on Iraq just as Obama's was and it was well written.

You are also wrong about people not apologizing, it's been done before many times.

[Kathianne]

I don't believe that the NYT refused to run a counter viewpoint. They said that they weould love to run a piece that mirrored Obama's, i.e. that was a similar piece that delineated McCain's plan for Iraq....my guess is that the quality of writing was not good enough. I can tell you from first hand experience: engilsh composition is not a highly stressed skill at USNA!:lol:

And with that, you stand alone. Well maybe with Joe Steel, congrats on that.

[red states rule]

And with that, you stand alone. Well maybe with Joe Steel, congrats on that.

Reminds me of the folks who said the Titantic was not sinking

They held firm to that belief until the water reached their lower lip

[Yurt]

it was "tongue in cheek" :laugh2:

[theHawk]

American liberal media is just about the same as having a state run media.

[avatar4321]

apologize? shit...nobody EVER apologizes for anything on here...why do you expect ME to start?

McCain says:

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.

I believe that the extremists supported by AQ are inconsequential and irrelevant to Iraq's future...I DO, however, believe that the shiite militias are definitely supported by Iran and that Iraq will become a satellite/client state closely aligned with Iran within a short time after our departure whenever the hell it finally occurs.

yeah, heaven forbid you actually apologize when you do something wrong. You have been proven wrong, admit it. Everyone else does when they are wrong. I am really glad you arent my pastor.

[Yurt]

apologize? shit...nobody EVER apologizes for anything on here...why do you expect ME to start?

.

nobody? ever? are you positive? no one has ever apologized for "anything" on here? do you still stand by this statement or would you like to retract it?

[namvet]

it was a good move by McCain, he just proved once again how corrupt the liberal media really is.

[retiredman]

nobody? ever? are you positive? no one has ever apologized for "anything" on here? do you still stand by this statement or would you like to retract it?


retract it? hell no. it's rhetorical hyperbole....like:

"if I've told you once, Ive told you a million times, don't exaggerate!"

why don't you spend a little more time addressing the substance of my remarks and a little less time nit picking them for errors and then demanding "retractions".

that would be a grown up thing to do.

[Yurt]

retract it? hell no. it's rhetorical hyperbole....like:

"if I've told you once, Ive told you a million times, don't exaggerate!"

why don't you spend a little more time addressing the substance of my remarks and a little less time nit picking them for errors and then demanding "retractions".

that would be a grown up thing to do.

you mean act like you and run around the board insulting me :laugh2:

[retiredman]

you mean act like you and run around the board insulting me :laugh2:


that is precisely what you do already!

I wonder how many times you have called me a liar in the last month? 100 maybe?

[avatar4321]

retract it? hell no. it's rhetorical hyperbole....like:

"if I've told you once, Ive told you a million times, don't exaggerate!"

why don't you spend a little more time addressing the substance of my remarks and a little less time nit picking them for errors and then demanding "retractions".

that would be a grown up thing to do.

The substance of your remarks was that McCain didn't know how to write. His editorial was then posted and you have tried to sidetrack the fact that your assertion was wrong.

Rather than admit your mistake, you instead tried to justify yourself by saying no one apologizes for anything, which is blatantly false. The substance of that assertion has been addressed as well. Now you are trying to distract by claiming people are just nit picking.

Perhaps, if you wrote posts with substance, or responded with substance, rather than trying to distract people from the fact that you are wrong, then you won't have to worry about nit picking (which is simply saying, I am wrong, but its your fault im wrong because you dont see things the way I do). Anyone shows you where you are wrong you yell that they are distracting from the discussion. Typical.

[avatar4321]

that is precisely what you do already!

I wonder how many times you have called me a liar in the last month? 100 maybe?

And how many times was he actually catching you in a lie?

[retiredman]

And how many times was he actually catching you in a lie?

a LIE? zero

[Yurt]

Well, for one you were wrong. The piece was on Iraq just as Obama's was and it was well written.

You are also wrong about people not apologizing, it's been done before many times.

good point

[Yurt]

And how many times was he actually catching you in a lie?

he'll never admit to anything, it is a lost cause...

[retiredman]

The substance of your remarks was that McCain didn't know how to write. His editorial was then posted and you have tried to sidetrack the fact that your assertion was wrong.

Rather than admit your mistake, you instead tried to justify yourself by saying no one apologizes for anything, which is blatantly false. The substance of that assertion has been addressed as well. Now you are trying to distract by claiming people are just nit picking.

Perhaps, if you wrote posts with substance, or responded with substance, rather than trying to distract people from the fact that you are wrong, then you won't have to worry about nit picking (which is simply saying, I am wrong, but its your fault im wrong because you dont see things the way I do). Anyone shows you where you are wrong you yell that they are distracting from the discussion. Typical.
the substance of my remark was that I made a guess. A GUESS as to why it might have been rejected. Was my GUESS accurate? I don't know, because neither you, nor I know the reason why the article was rejected. Was my GUESS a "mistake"? again... no one here knows. Was it a LIE? certainly not. Was my GUESS borderline sarcastic about McCain's writing ability? of course. He was the son and grandson of admirals and academy graduates, but he was not exactly an academic superstar at boat school. I poked fun at him. how dreadful. Look at the shit that everyone says and posts about Obama 24 fucking 7 on here and I don't see you or anyone else nitpicking those sorts of insults. back off.

And I have spent MONTHS on this site trying to write posts with substance and they are routinely ridiculed and my patriotism and service routinely denigrated. I NEVER see anyone get castigated for shit like that...EVER, yet I have guys like you and yurt chasing me around catching me in "misstatements".


Do you really want a site where the only people who post on here share your politics and viewpoints?

[MtnBiker]

No guessing is needed to explain the rejection of the McCain editorial. Shipley explains it quite clear.


Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.

'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'


For everyone's infromation; there have been several apologies made by members on this board. And no one has advocated that only one perspective be represented on the board. Any suggestion that only one perspective is desireable on the board is simply wrong.

[avatar4321]

the substance of my remark was that I made a guess. A GUESS as to why it might have been rejected. Was my GUESS accurate? I don't know, because neither you, nor I know the reason why the article was rejected. Was my GUESS a "mistake"? again... no one here knows. Was it a LIE? certainly not. Was my GUESS borderline sarcastic about McCain's writing ability? of course. He was the son and grandson of admirals and academy graduates, but he was not exactly an academic superstar at boat school. I poked fun at him. how dreadful. Look at the shit that everyone says and posts about Obama 24 fucking 7 on here and I don't see you or anyone else nitpicking those sorts of insults. back off.

And I have spent MONTHS on this site trying to write posts with substance and they are routinely ridiculed and my patriotism and service routinely denigrated. I NEVER see anyone get castigated for shit like that...EVER, yet I have guys like you and yurt chasing me around catching me in "misstatements".


Do you really want a site where the only people who post on here share your politics and viewpoints?

So you justify libel as "a guess"? You are willing to destroy a man's name and reputation on absolutely no facts?

Are you honestly going to claim to be that you had some reason to presume that John McCain was a horrible writer? That you were just guessing that he wasnt intelligent enough?

What I want, which really doesnt matter cause it's not my board, is honest dialogue. I want people to be honest. I want people to have some character. I want to see some intellectual honesty instead of this bull crap. I want to see people treated with respect. I want to see people accountable for what they do and say and not accused of things they haven't done.

Obviously you dont want to be held accountable for anything you say. You just want to libel McCain and treat him unfairly because you are scared he is going to beat your Messiah. You get called on it and you try to weasel your way out of it. Take responsibility for what you say. If you are going to make a claim back it up or admit you can't. Dont whine about how unfair others are treating you.

I mean come on! How old are you? Do you honestly think that you can say anything you want on a discussion board and no one is going to challenge you? I mean what the heck is the point of free speech if you cant challenge the absurd statements other people make? You want us to just sit around watch you act completely dishonest and think we arent going to call you on it? Do you honestly think its somehow our fault that you said something stupid?

I am so sick of self-righteous individuals who somehow think they can say whatever they want with no criticism. And yet have no problem criticizing anyone else. I am so sick and tired of people trying to excuse bad behavior because everyone else is doing it.

This is exactly why I am a conservative.

[avatar4321]

No guessing is needed to explain the rejection of the McCain editorial. Shipley explains it quite clear.


I think the question left by it is what does the NYT mean by mirroring Senator Obama's piece. Well it looks like they have clarified what they mean:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080721/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_newspaper


In an e-mail to the campaign on Friday, David Shipley, an op-ed editor at the newspaper, said he could not accept the piece in its current form, but would look at another version. In the e-mail, released by McCain's campaign, 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. And it would need to describe the senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan."

Commenting Monday on the Times' request, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said, "John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of The New York Times

In other words, the only way the NYT will print the op-ed is if Senator McCain accepts Obama's positions.

The office's response is the appropriate one. Victory needs to be determined by conditions on the ground. Otherwise, you are just playing political games with the troops. Why is it necessary for Senator McCain to ignore reality in Iraq for him to get his op-ed published?

[retiredman]

So you justify libel as "a guess"? You are willing to destroy a man's name and reputation on absolutely no facts?

Are you honestly going to claim to be that you had some reason to presume that John McCain was a horrible writer? That you were just guessing that he wasnt intelligent enough?

What I want, which really doesnt matter cause it's not my board, is honest dialogue. I want people to be honest. I want people to have some character. I want to see some intellectual honesty instead of this bull crap. I want to see people treated with respect. I want to see people accountable for what they do and say and not accused of things they haven't done.

Obviously you dont want to be held accountable for anything you say. You just want to libel McCain and treat him unfairly because you are scared he is going to beat your Messiah. You get called on it and you try to weasel your way out of it. Take responsibility for what you say. If you are going to make a claim back it up or admit you can't. Dont whine about how unfair others are treating you.

I mean come on! How old are you? Do you honestly think that you can say anything you want on a discussion board and no one is going to challenge you? I mean what the heck is the point of free speech if you cant challenge the absurd statements other people make? You want us to just sit around watch you act completely dishonest and think we arent going to call you on it? Do you honestly think its somehow our fault that you said something stupid?

I am so sick of self-righteous individuals who somehow think they can say whatever they want with no criticism. And yet have no problem criticizing anyone else. I am so sick and tired of people trying to excuse bad behavior because everyone else is doing it.

This is exactly why I am a conservative.


destroy a man's name and his reputation? could you possibly be just a litte MORE dramatic? Now THAT is stupid. I suggested that perhaps his composition was not up to par with NYT's standards and, all of a sudden I am DESTROYING McCain's name and reputation???? Talk about self righteous!!! And do you honestly think that referring to Senator Barack Obama as the "messiah" shows any respect to either HIM OR Jesus Christ? Hypocrite.

[PostmodernProphet]

I feel compelled to apologize to MFM....I took advantage of him....in a moment of weakness he typed his thoughts into this thread.....if I had been kind I would not have read his thoughts but I was not kind.....I read them.....I laughed.....I should not have done that, it was not kind......(and you said we never apologize)......

[Yurt]

i think its pathetic when people whine and make false claims about people "chasing" them around the board pointing out mistakes. its a board, a debate board. where you debate topics, hence if you make a mistake, why is it people cry about getting called on it, especially when some of these people are relentless about making others apologize and in fact creating a whole thread about slandering character and calling someone a liar when they may a mistake.

it is pure intellectual dishonesty and echoing avi's thoughts, it would be nice to have more honest discussions.

[retiredman]

especially when some of these people are relentless about making others apologize and in fact creating a whole thread about slandering character and calling someone a liar when they may a mistake.



so...you are saying that when RSR has repeatedly denigrated my patriotism and my service...when he has repeatedly stated that I have continually pressed for surrender and defeat.... he wasn't being a slanderous shithead, but merely "may" have made a "mistake"????:lame2:

[MtnBiker]

I think the question left by it is what does the NYT mean by mirroring Senator Obama's piece. Well it looks like they have clarified what they mean:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080721/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_newspaper



In other words, the only way the NYT will print the op-ed is if Senator McCain accepts Obama's positions.

The office's response is the appropriate one. Victory needs to be determined by conditions on the ground. Otherwise, you are just playing political games with the troops. Why is it necessary for Senator McCain to ignore reality in Iraq for him to get his op-ed published?

Quite right, there was no "guessing" needed.

[Yurt]

so...you are saying that when RSR has repeatedly denigrated my patriotism and my service...when he has repeatedly stated that I have continually pressed for surrender and defeat.... he wasn't being a slanderous shithead, but merely "may" have made a "mistake"????:lame2:

i was not talking about RSR at all, nice try, he has not, to my knowledge, called someone a liar for making a simple mistake and then when the person says oooops, continues to call them a liar etc....

anyhooo

[red states rule]

Back to the topic.....


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3064/2693028863_08694e4f9d_m.jpg

[Kathianne]

so...you are saying that when RSR has repeatedly denigrated my patriotism and my service...when he has repeatedly stated that I have continually pressed for surrender and defeat.... he wasn't being a slanderous shithead, but merely "may" have made a "mistake"????:lame2:

Seriously, all we have is your 'word' and his regarding anything. You have continuously posted hateful things regarding others. You have continuously posted that regardless of the sacrifices made by our troops, Iraq is doomed to failure, because of your 'first hand knowledge' of Muslims.

While you may well be proved right in the long run, I find your arrogance and nastiness worthy of negative take on my part.

[red states rule]

Seriously, all we have is your 'word' and his regarding anything. You have continuously posted hateful things regarding others. You have continuously posted that regardless of the sacrifices made by our troops, Iraq is doomed to failure, because of your 'first hand knowledge' of Muslims.

While you may well be proved right in the long run, I find your arrogance and nastiness worthy of negative take on my part.

Now you did it. He will whine how you never take your conservative "buddies" to task, bias from the staff, and how he is being picked on because of his views

YAWN.............

[red states rule]

Andrea Mitchell may get chewed out for letting a little of the truth slip out. Chris Matthews quickly changed the subject afterwards

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/48pYUJDRd9Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/48pYUJDRd9Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>