New York Times Rejects McCain Editorial
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in Iraq, McCain, MediaSo, the New York Times has just rejected an op-ed piece from John McCain on the Iraq war. The paper said the piece was too focused on criticizing Barack Obama and, before they could publish such an essay, McCain would need to specifically address: “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.”
These changes, the Times says would make McCain’s editorial fit in with the Obama editorial published by the paper last week.
The McCain editorial is indeed a piece primarily criticizing Obama’s interpretation of and plan for the conflict in Iraq. It’s actually a decent if oft-repeated encapsulation of what makes Obama’s Iraq position so frustrating – namely that the Illinois Senator as not changed is opinion or plans despite changes on the ground (although he has left room for the possibility of changes). The best line McCain slings:
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.
But I understand why the New York Times would reject the piece in its current form. What national paper wants to become a platform for the candidates to criticize one another – what would Paul Krugman and William Kristol write about if Obama and McCain are permitted to make all the attacks personally?
When I read an op-ed by a candidate, I don’t want to see the same argument that I can read from any partisan blogger. I want new information or at least new justifications. McCain’s op-ed piece doesn’t deliver any new plans or any new clarifications, so while some will try to spin this is yet another liberal-media attempt to dismiss McCain, I think he should submit a new essay that doesn’t just call into question Obama’s judgment but explains how McCain envisions being able to bring most of our troops home by the end of 2013 – a goal he’s repeatedly stated but never fully elaborated upon.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008 and is filed under Iraq, McCain, Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:02 am
Nonsense, ASC, and you know it. The New York times has given editorial space to dozens of elected politicians over the years who have used the opportunity to do nothing but criticize president Bush’s policies, and have offered no semblance of a comprehensive alternative plan - other than to simply oppose Bush.
How can this be interpreted as anything else but political bias? Apparently, you need to believe in a fixed timetable for withdrawal of American troops in order to be published in the New York times. This is silly anyway because David Brooks and Tom Friedman have both published editorials explaining why timetables are a mistake. So only Republican candidates for President are not allowed that opinion.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:11 am
An editorial criticizing the policy of a sitting President by another office holder is not the same thing as one candidate for office in an ongoing election cycle criticizing another candidate when neither of them hold the office being contested. Like Bush, many of his followers don’t do nuance.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:28 am
So one candidate for office in an ongoing election cycle should not criticize the proposals of the other candidate in an editorial? What absurd jack-assery. Is that nuanced enough for you?
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:27 am
jimmy, I thought you voted for Nader?
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:47 am
NYT is playing a dangerous game by trying to act as a moderator and content editor for either candidate. They come off, at best, like they are the “reasoning police.” At worst, they look like they are playing favorites and interjecting themselves into the race.
I read McCain’s piece and the Times rejection, but without reading Obama’s piece, I don’t really understand very well what their objection is. And even if it’s valid, as Alan suggests, I still think they ought to have kept it to themselves, or pointed it out in their OWN editorial. Once they give candidate A x column inches to expound on his foreign policy vision, their policy ought to be to give candidate B x inches as well. And they ought not to expect that they have a right to guide the responding essay.
It would be much better to print that essay, and if they have issues with it, they ought to point those out in their own editorial. That would have been a much better approach.
Of course, it is QUITE possible that the NYT expected to ultimately print a McCain essay after some back and forth, and the McCain campaign saw advantage in making the NYT the issue instead of revising their essay. If they did, then that’s well played. I have to think that ultimately now MORE people will have read McCain’s essay, _and_ they’ll have read it with a sympathetic eye.
All THAT said, I think it’s quite legitimate, in the abstract, to expect John McCain to provide more detail into how he expects things to unfold in Iraq. IMO, the timetable-no-timetable issue is a binary red herring. Regardless of who the next President is, it seems clear that the withdrawal wheels are in motion and that we’ll have to be ready to adjust our plans as circumstances require. I’ve said for some time that the withdrawal would come with some sort of US declaration of as much victory as possible along with noticing that the burden going forward would be upon Iraqis themselves.
It boils down to beginning to make the shift of the burden to Iraqis while we draw down troops, and seeing how that goes. The only real question is what we expect to do if at some intermediate point Iraqi security conditions begin to deteriorate? Does McCain stand ready to flood troops back into Iraq in another surge at the first signs of trouble? Only if things get really bad? Does Obama view the withdrawal as an irrevocable trend?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 am
I did, but politics in 2000 was all “Lockbox” and “Strategery” back then. I thought it would be cool to shake things up and get someone with actual measurable intelligence like Nader in the debates.
Also, after 2001 I decided to read the Koran and study the life of Mohammad. That’ll change your whole outlook on things if you are honest with yourself and are not a slave to politically-correct, multiculti nonsense.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 am
[...] « New York Times Rejects McCain Editorial [...]
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:51 am
NT handled this completely wrong–it treated the McCain piece differently than it would have treated any other similar submission because of WHO it was from, and not WHAT it was.
Read it. McCain’s piece is not an OP-Ed article; it is a response to Obama’s OP-ED.
As such, I would have treated it as exactly what it was–a letter to the editor–and then followed the stated guidelines:
Letters to the editor should only be sent to The Times, and not to other publications. We do not publish open letters or third-party letters.
Letters for publication should be no longer than 150 words, must refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days, and must include the writer’s address and phone numbers. No attachments, please….
As a courtesy to McCain, I would have informed of said intention, and if he was not happy with it, he could respond accordingly by actually submitting an OP-ED piece.
That is essentially what they did, but because they got caught up in WHO it is from, they allowed this to become a squawk box for the right, who are using this to martyr McCain.
That’s pretty ironic when one considers that McCain has been given nothing but love taps for years. This is not McCain being mistreated; it is McCain not getting his usual adoring treatment from the media.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
McCain is going to need to smarten up about how to win public opinion outside print and most of TV journalism. They’re not going to waver from their support of Obama, so McCain (and his supporters) should start focusing on solutions to the media challenge. Yes, it’s unfair. We get it. Now act like a future leader of the free world, suck it up, and figure out a solution.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:36 am
If the NYT hadn’t published numerous McCain essays over the years then I’d be upset. But they have. I don’t think they’re insisting on a timeline (I read that as just an example of how he could revise it), they just want McCain to focus on his specifics more than just criticize Obama. I mean, you read the McCain piece right? It was like something from HotAir — just the standard critique of Obama. Obama’s piece was far more specific to his plans. It’s legitimate to ask McCain to beef his up. But, I do agree with Kranky, it’s a dangerous game. They pretty much have left themselves in the position of playing hall monitor for the rest of the campaign.