John on July 21, 2008 at 10:47 am
Drudge has a media bombshell. A little over a week ago, the Times published an editorial by Barack Obama which was essentially a preview of his “major foreign policy speech” (see my take on that here). However, when Senator McCain submitted a rebuttal of Obama’s piece for the pages of the Times, it was rejected:
‘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.’
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.’
In other words, hands off Obama! The Times is simply not going to allow their precious editorial space to be given over to a thorough drubbing of Obama’s idiocy. That wouldn’t be fair and we know the Times is all about being fair (especially to Democrats).
Drudge published the entire McCain editorial as submitted to the times. It’s potent stuff which is no doubt the real reason it won’t see daylight at the Times. Here’s a sample:
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.
Well, it wouldn’t be an election season without at least one case of absurd bias from the NY Times.
Category: MSM & Bias |