The Times says no equal time for McCain: his op-ed’s not the news that’s fit to print
Obama’s recent op-ed piece in the NY Times was pretty easy to skewer. And yet somehow the Times found it good enough to print.
But the schoolmarms at the Grey Lady have rejected McCain’s return offering on the subject, saying that it just doesn’t cut the mustard. Poor McCain; he must be having PTSD for his student days.
The Times’ op-ed editor David Shipley (a former Clinton administration speechwriter, but no doubt a totally unbiased gatekeeper nonetheless) offers the following excuse for its behavior:
‘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.’
Boy, I missed the part in Obama’s op-ed piece where he defines victory in Iraq—or the part with the detail about his withdrawal plans, or the way in which his retread of his withdrawal plans gave us new information. Sounded to me like the same old timetable he touted when he was proposing withdrawal instead of the surge, back when he actually sort of semi-functioned as a US Senator.
Furthermore, since McCain has made it clear he does not believe in telegraphing “plans” to the enemy, and that he is going to be responsive to conditions on the ground as the generals report them, how on earth could he “mirror” Obama’s piece by divulging his own plans?
And I also much have missed the part where Obama defined “success in Iraq,” as the Times now insists McCain do. Maybe it’s because, as McCain writes in the rejected article (you can read the whole thing here):
I am also dismayed that [Obama] never talks about winning the war””only of ending it.
Touche, McCain. It’s one of Obama’s most noticeable verbal niceties that he refuses to use the “w” word at all. The only thing he says about success in Iraq is that the level of violence is down (very much no thanks to him; if we’d followed his plans it would be sky-high right now) and that somehow our withdrawal will pressure the Iraqi government to achieve what he says they haven’t so far [emphasis mine]:
Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country.
As John Hindraker of Powerline wrote:
Obama completely fails to acknowledge the remarkable political progress that has resulted from the surge, as manifested by the fact that the country’s largest Sunni bloc has rejoined the government, and the U.S. Embassy reports that 15 of the 18 benchmarks of political progress that were set by Congress are now being met. Those benchmarks were set precisely for the purpose of measuring the “political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge,” yet Obama fails even to mention them.
But I bet Hindraker’s critique wouldn’t pass muster at the Times either.
[NOTE: I’m revising my estimate of the number of points Obama’s press support is worth. Now I’d say it’s about forty per cent.]
That’s not the Times I knew.
Oh wait, yes it is.
Never mind.
This kind of think has also been the hallmark of the AGW debate. Tell people that the “deniers” findings are un-publishable.
I was an early wisher for Obama to put the brakes on Hillary because I thought he did not have a prayer for winning while she might. I have to admit to some doubt since Hillary withdrew (did she actually, officially, irrevocably…?). But the last week in Obamania has caused my confidence to return. I am now certain that Obama will not win the election.
The recent adulation contrived by a fawning press has been over nothing! Cotton candy has more substance. To the extent he is not a cliche of Ivy League elitist leftism, an airhead or an empty suit, he is the cynical product of a corrupt political machine (both Chicago and national Democrat) utterly lacking experience – let alone accomplishment. His policy positions and statements range from vapid to ignorant.
Whether self-deluded Democrats admit it or not, Obama is an embarrassment – a fact that clear-eyed Democrats, independents and Republicans are all but certain to grasp no matter how shrill the shill for Obama.
Neo, I say again….
“Just Say Nobama!”
I don’t think that Obama is an empty suit media construct. I KNOW that’s all he is. His CV is a parody that wouldn’t survive an Indy script writer brainstorming session.
Racist. Marxist. Hack.
And if the gaffes coalesce to the point that a very modest number of Old Media icons (the Washington Post has already put a little hurt on him)… then there is a technical episode characterized by the sound “*poof*” as the crowd realizes there really aren’t any clothes on the Hopey one.
The New York Times will carry water until there is no town left to save… but the push back the big three networks are already feeling over the Obama World Tour fellatio fest is already squeaking out across the intertubes…
Hillary never conceded; not even close.
The Friday confab gave Obama a chance to be graceful in victory, and he and his crew completely missed the boat, the bus, and even the oxcart. Hillary might have pulled back until 2012. Not a chance of that now. None.
Two words for you:
Floor vote.
I bet it takes at least two ballots. Maybe three.
And Denver will burn.
Hillary may not get the nomination. But she’ll be assured of facing a Republican incumbent, so she’s got nothing to lose.
“Cotton candy has more substance…he is the cynical product of a corrupt political machine… utterly lacking…accomplishment. His policy positions and statements range from vapid to ignorant.”
I actually agree with you, but these are descriptions that anyone must satisfy in order to get ahead within either national party. If you’re running for president and want to sabotage your campaign, just go around making comments of merit and substance. The opposition spinmeisters will promptly fashion those meritorious statements into a noose, and slip it around your neck.
I’m not complaining, mind you. We have the best democracy that money can buy.