| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:12 pm Post subject: Drudge: "NYT Rejects McCain's Editorial..." |
 |
|
Just breaking on Drudge...
Incredible...
| Quote: | 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.'
MORE
In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: '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.'
NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'
[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]
MORE
A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."
McCain writes in the rejected essay: '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.'
MORE
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.'
Developing...
Drudge Report - cont'd |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TEWSPilot
Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1235
Location: Kansas (Transplanted Texan)
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: ...and the horse that "delivers" their editorial c |
|
|
What media bias? Why there isn't any, in fact Pelosi and Kerry and Durbin and the rest of the barnyard animals running Congress are so convinced that they want to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" because the Conservative message is the only one getting out.
Maybe it's time to bypass the NYT and send it to every other outlet possible. Would the Army Times, the Navy Times, etc., be a better choice? Granted, it wouldn't be read by the moonbats supporting Obama, but they wouldn't read it anyway, so what's the difference?
Maybe the NYT should publish Michelle Obama's theses...oooooops, almost used another word that rhymes... ...well, they are one and the same.... 
I just signed a petition opposing the so-called "Fairness Doctrine"
and similar efforts to silence conservative leaders like Rush Limbaugh,
Mark Levin and Sean Hannity.
Now I understand that liberal leaders are blocking an effort to
protect the rights of conservatives.
Please join me in signing this petition:
http://www.grassfire.net/410/petition.asp?PID=17574814&NID=1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zinfella
Rear Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 708
Location: Mesa, Az
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We can take some solace in the fact that subscribers are rejecting The NY Times in droves. That reduces what they can charge for advertising rates, and hits 'em right in the bottom line! It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
_________________
No whiners! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1991932
Lance Corporal
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 381
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
The NYT just announced a price increase to $1.50 at the newsstand.
Now that's some serious CHANGE!
_________________
Former "War Criminal" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TEWSPilot
Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1235
Location: Kansas (Transplanted Texan)
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
...and didn't DRUDGE report their profits are down 82%? Now if we could somehow connect their profits to the price of a barrel of oil...carry the 2, divide by....naw, that Obama math is just too complicated for me to figure out....I guess it only applies to counting up to 57 states....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
