The Republican Thread

[kapkomet]

LOL, I actually heard that line this morning and I didn't realize that's what he was saying. I was wondering why it seemed like such a non-sequitor.

Because he's not registered with the GOP, otherwise it's headline top, front and center in the NYT, etc.

 

[southsider2k5]

http://www.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.'

 

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...

[southsider2k5]

temper, temper...

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...-newyorker.html

 

In satirical payback, Obama camp denies New Yorker writer plane seat

 

There's probably no connection whatsoever.

 

But the New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza, whose long, long article on Barack Obama's early political days in Chicago's ward politics (available here) was the reason for the magazine's controversial cover by Barry Blitt depicting Obama as a Muslim, has been barred from traveling with Obama on his foreign field trip this week.

 

The elitist magazine claimed the cover's depiction waThe satirical cover of the New Yorker magazine for the issue of 7-21-08s satirical of a Muslim Obama fist-bumping with a militant wife Michelle armed with an AK-47 beneath a portrait of Osama bin Laden while they burn a U.S. flag -- in the Oval Office.

 

Initially, the Obama campaign and John McCain's spokesman denounced the cover.

 

Later, a cooler Obama dismissed it as a weak attempt at satire amid much more important things to discuss.

 

More than 200 media folks applied to fly in Europe with the freshman senator. But, alas, the Obama campaign said it simply was not able to find a seat for Lizza.

 

Now, that's Chicago politics.

 

-- Andrew Malcolm

[southsider2k5]

So it looks like the June pace of $30 million raised was pretty accurate at the time it was printed...

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...jE4YTg2MjZlOTc=

 

Obama's $25 Million Day

 

Obama raised $25 million on June 30?

 

So as of June 29, he had raised $27 million?

 

In other words, until the last day of the month, the greatest fund-raiser in American political history had raised $5 million more than McCain, and was barely ahead of his previous month? No wonder the buzz was so bad.

 

Since beginning his campaign for president, Barack Obama has raised $349.7 million and spent $277.6 million. John McCain has raised $144 million and spent $117 million.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm

That's s***ty. I can't think of a single valid reason why they shouldn't run the response. Disappointing to say the least.

 

[southsider2k5]

So how many people knew about this comic? It ran a month ago in the Rolling Stone. Talk about stereotypes. Yeesh.

 

[southsider2k5]

Even better...

 

[southsider2k5]

That's s***ty. I can't think of a single valid reason why they shouldn't run the response. Disappointing to say the least.

 

And really all it does is fuel the fires of the "liberal" media charges.

[lostfan]

Even better...

 

I lol'd.

[mr_genius]

That's s***ty. I can't think of a single valid reason why they shouldn't run the response. Disappointing to say the least.

 

I can think of a few reasons. They are crappy journalists, they are pro-Obama, they are pro-Democrat in general, they are more of a tabloid than newspaper, ect.

[southsider2k5]

I can think of a few reasons. They are crappy journalists, they are pro-Obama, they are pro-Democrat in general, they are more of a tabloid than newspaper, ect.

 

I would think he would agree that none of those are valid, and that is why NSS didn't mention any of them.

[mr_genius]

Even better...

 

 

 

 

[mr_genius]

I would think he would agree that none of those are valid, and that is why NSS didn't mention any of them.

 

all valid, and all true.

 

he would have to at least admit they are crappy journalists.

 

[Rex Kickass]

That's s***ty. I can't think of a single valid reason why they shouldn't run the response. Disappointing to say the least.

 

If they ran the op-ed, there'd be barely a flutter. By turning it down, it helps McCain more honestly.

[mr_genius]

If they ran the op-ed, there'd be barely a flutter. By turning it down, it helps McCain more honestly.

 

It does help him with parts of the GOP base. The New York Times is a great fund raiser for him.

[Rex Kickass]

It does help him with parts of the GOP base. The New York Times is a great fund raiser for him.

If they ran the op-ed, nobody would be talking about it.

[lostfan]

Honestly, is asking for a (REALISTIC) definition of victory too much to ask?

 

This is one of those questions I ask where I already know the answer to, but pretend I don't. In the context of the Iraq war, or Afghanistan, there is no such thing as "victory." It is completely abstract propaganda fuel, so that's the reason you always hear people talking about it but never actually saying what it is - defining it kind of neuters the word. "Victory" happens when we say it does, and when we get what we want. Unfortunately that works two ways, the enemy will declare "victory" no matter what we do, short of a genocidal campaign. So technically then we would "lose," right, the way the Soviets did when they left Afghanistan? No, not if our leaders stop using the language of the enemy propagandists.

[EvilMonkey]

Seems one of our own here has been busy on Digg.

http://digg.com/pets_animals/McCain_s_Pretty_Lame

[NorthSideSox72]

all valid, and all true.

 

he would have to at least admit they are crappy journalists.

Rejecting the letter is definitely crappy journalism. And whomever on the editorial board made the call, I'd have to guess, has a port list.

 

[bmags]

First, the editorials are a different staff than the hard news portions of papers. And two, in my opinion, this was the NY Times wanting to out Scoop everyone. They got Obama's definitive Middle East positions before his speech exclusively, and got mucho coverage for it. They wanted the same from McCain. McCain's editorial wasn't much different from what he says on TV, so it wouldn't have been big news, and when I say this, I'm saying it's not much different because of the way it is structured/the way it is said. The Times is looking for the "Why we are going to win Iraq by: John McCain". Big, Bold, huge talking point for every media, and they'll all have to say : McCain's editorial in the NY Times today. I come to these conclusions due to the editor clearly wanting another draft from McCain. I understand the perceiving this as favoritism, from the ill-worded "what are your troop withdrawel timetables", but I can also see how the Times just wants to sell some papers by outscooping everyone. They are one of the big news outlets who are doing well with their web site, and out scooping everyone at a national level helps immensely.

 

And further, I'd love for the responses to my query letters to editors to come back so polite and explained. Perks of being a Presidential candidate.

[Texsox]

That's s***ty. I can't think of a single valid reason why they shouldn't run the response. Disappointing to say the least.

 

The second candidate should basically get free space. No rules, no editing, much like any advertisement. This was an easy win for my man. Obama had to conform to some rules, McCain could write anything and win. If they printed, he had a great piece, if they didn't, he could continue crying media bias, which gets him money. Beautiful situation to be in. First person loses in this.

[southsider2k5]

If they ran the op-ed, there'd be barely a flutter. By turning it down, it helps McCain more honestly.

 

There is the kicker of it all. It totally gives the right wing something else to crow about. It fully takes away their arguement that they are somehow unbiased and nuetral in the eyes of about half of the country. It was an all around stupid thing to do for the NYT.

[NorthSideSox72]

First, the editorials are a different staff than the hard news portions of papers. And two, in my opinion, this was the NY Times wanting to out Scoop everyone. They got Obama's definitive Middle East positions before his speech exclusively, and got mucho coverage for it. They wanted the same from McCain. McCain's editorial wasn't much different from what he says on TV, so it wouldn't have been big news, and when I say this, I'm saying it's not much different because of the way it is structured/the way it is said. The Times is looking for the "Why we are going to win Iraq by: John McCain". Big, Bold, huge talking point for every media, and they'll all have to say : McCain's editorial in the NY Times today. I come to these conclusions due to the editor clearly wanting another draft from McCain. I understand the perceiving this as favoritism, from the ill-worded "what are your troop withdrawel timetables", but I can also see how the Times just wants to sell some papers by outscooping everyone. They are one of the big news outlets who are doing well with their web site, and out scooping everyone at a national level helps immensely.

 

And further, I'd love for the responses to my query letters to editors to come back so polite and explained. Perks of being a Presidential candidate.

Bolded is a key point, and very true. That's why I referred specifically to the editorial board.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Rejecting the letter is definitely crappy journalism. And whomever on the editorial board made the call, I'd have to guess, has a port list.

It was not a letter, it was an Op-Ed piece. Big difference.

[NorthSideSox72]

It was not a letter, it was an Op-Ed piece. Big difference.

That's sort of irrelevant to the fact that Obama ran a piece, on the same subject, and McCain's was rejected. Unless McCain's letter clearly violated some rules of the paper (like it was full of expletives, or revealed state secrets, or whatever), then this is B.S. journalism. The editorial board should be ashamed.