NY Slimes Censorship

[Guest Patriot]

The Loony Leftists, which are always preaching about the Constitution, should be outraged that the NY Slimes refused to print McCain's op-ed

piece on the war in Iraq because his article didn't include a date for troop removal. I didn't think the Slimes could sink any lower but it looks like

they've done it. They didn't agree with the contents of McCain's article so they wouldn't print it. A newspaper censoring an op-ed article

submitted by a presidential candidate is certainly a first for America.

I'm wondering if the Loonies, who want foreign terrorists to receive the full protection of the Constitution will agree with the Simes violating the

Constitutional rights of an American presidential candidate. My guess is the Slimes will get a pass (it's all Bush's fault).

[Guest Guest]

The Loony Leftists, which are always preaching about the Constitution, should be outraged that the NY Slimes refused to print McCain's op-ed

piece on the war in Iraq because his article didn't include a date for troop removal. I didn't think the Slimes could sink any lower but it looks like

they've done it. They didn't agree with the contents of McCain's article so they wouldn't print it. A newspaper censoring an op-ed article

submitted by a presidential candidate is certainly a first for America.

I'm wondering if the Loonies, who want foreign terrorists to receive the full protection of the Constitution will agree with the Simes violating the

Constitutional rights of an American presidential candidate. My guess is the Slimes will get a pass (it's all Bush's fault).

Since you have a perfect record of posting BS with no basis in reality I can only wonder what part of this story you missed. Or did you just fall off your barstool and bang your head again?

[Guest Guest]

The Loony Leftists, which are always preaching about the Constitution, should be outraged that the NY Slimes refused to print McCain's op-ed

piece on the war in Iraq because his article didn't include a date for troop removal. I didn't think the Slimes could sink any lower but it looks like

they've done it. They didn't agree with the contents of McCain's article so they wouldn't print it. A newspaper censoring an op-ed article

submitted by a presidential candidate is certainly a first for America.

I'm wondering if the Loonies, who want foreign terrorists to receive the full protection of the Constitution will agree with the Simes violating the

Constitutional rights of an American presidential candidate. My guess is the Slimes will get a pass (it's all Bush's fault).

I canceled my subscription to the Times a year ago, their liberal slant just got too annoying.

[Guest Guest]

The Loony Leftists, which are always preaching about the Constitution, should be outraged that the NY Slimes refused to print McCain's op-ed

piece on the war in Iraq because his article didn't include a date for troop removal. I didn't think the Slimes could sink any lower but it looks like

they've done it. They didn't agree with the contents of McCain's article so they wouldn't print it.

Let McCain get his swiftboat buddies to do it. Also:

"Times officials said that the decision not to publish Mr. McCain’s submission should not be considered a total rejection of the article by the presumptive Republican nominee. Rather, David Shipley, editor of the Op-Ed page, kicked back the original version while offering suggestions for changes and revision.

Here’s Mr. Shipley’s email response on Friday to Michael Goldfarb, a member of the McCain team and frequent writer for the senator’s blog, McCainreport:

Dear Mr. Goldfarb,

Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.

I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the Op-Ed page.

However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach.

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.

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. It would also have to lay out 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.

I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. …

Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.

Sincerely,

David Shipley

Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page and Op-Ed, issued this statement today about the process undergone by editors in reviewing submissions:

It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission.

We look forward to publishing Senator McCain’s views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996.

The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the pesidential primaries. We take his views very seriously." --http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/the-times-and-the-mccain-op-ed/

2dim still drinks deep from the Kool-aid well.

[Guest Guest]

The Loony Leftists, which are always preaching about the Constitution, should be outraged that the NY Slimes refused to print McCain's op-ed

piece on the war in Iraq because his article didn't include a date for troop removal. I didn't think the Slimes could sink any lower but it looks like

they've done it. They didn't agree with the contents of McCain's article so they wouldn't print it. A newspaper censoring an op-ed article

submitted by a presidential candidate is certainly a first for America.

I'm wondering if the Loonies, who want foreign terrorists to receive the full protection of the Constitution will agree with the Simes violating the

Constitutional rights of an American presidential candidate. My guess is the Slimes will get a pass (it's all Bush's fault).

As usual, you don't have any idea what you're talking about. The New York Times, which is the nation's finest and most prestigious newspaper, is a private entity. As such, its decision about which Op-Ed pieces to publish cannot violate any Constitutional right - ever.

Let me explain it to you more specifically. The First Amendment right to freedom of the press is a prohibition against government suppression. A privately-owned newspaper has the right to print what it chooses to print, certainly on its editorial and Op-Ed pages. Deciding not to print McCain's piece is not censorship, stupid. It's just an editorial decision not to run that piece.

In this instance, the Times decided that McCain had written an empty self-cheerleading piece that did not merit inclusion on the Op-Ed page because it was not of suitable quality. That's called an editorial decision. Newspapers make them every day. If they didn't, the daily paper would be thousands of pages thick.

Maybe you should be concerned about Mr. McCain's ignorance of basic foreign policy facts, like the difference between the Sunnis and the Shiites, or the fact that Iraq has no border with Pakistan. (He talked about the Iraqi-Pakistani border today. One problem: it doesn't exist.)

[Guest *Autonomous*]

More bull from the Retard Right.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/mc...ponse-to-obama/

McCain Campaign: New York Times Blocked Op-Ed Response to Obama

The New York Times on Friday blocked an opinion piece submitted by John McCain to the newspaper shortly after it printed a piece by his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, McCain campaign officials confirmed to FOX News on Monday.

Obama’s piece detailed his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan. While McCain’s proposed piece also discussed Iraq, The Times told McCain’s advisers that it would not accept the op-ed in its current form because it did not offer new information. Obama’s speech previewed a series of speeches leading up to a highly publicized trip to war zones in the Middle East.

“I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the op-ed page. However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach,” Times op-ed editor David Shipley wrote the campaign via an e-mail later distributed by McCain’s team.

“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. It would also have to lay out 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,” Shipley wrote.

Shipley, who was named deputy editor in January 2003, served in the Clinton administration as a senior presidential speechwriter and special assistant to the president from 1995 to 1997.

McCain campaign Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker said the two candidates “have very different world views” about Iraq and the campaign wanted an opportunity to state its candidate’s view.

“We have elections in this country, not coronations and it’s unfortunate that The New York Times wouldn’t allow their readers to hear from John McCain and make their own judgment,” Hazelbaker told FOX News.

“John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times,” added McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

The New York Times issued a statement defending its process of posting op-eds.

“It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission. We look forward to publishing Senator McCain’s views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven op-ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously,” said Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis.

Obama’s op-ed ran on July 14, days before the Democratic presidential candidate departed for Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a congressional delegation that received coverage from all three broadcast networks’ news services. It is the first time the networks have traveled overseas with a candidate.

Hazelbaker said that it’s not her job to police the media coverage, but the campaign would have liked to have “made our case directly to the voters.”

“We think the American voter is smart enough to make the call on their own,” she said.

FOX News’ Shushannah Walshe contributed to this story.

Anyone who has ever dealt with a newspaper editor knows that this is SOP. McCain's campaign is trying to play the victim card now that the "Withdrawal is defeat" card isn't valid. As for the lies about Obama's position on withdrawal-his position has been on his website for months.

Although I'm sure you'll reject anything not by Faux News, here's a NYT story about the incident:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07...e-mccain-op-ed/

The Op-Ed section of The New York Times has decided not to publish an opinion piece submitted by Senator John McCain in response to one published last week by his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, on his plan for Iraq.

The decision occurs against the backdrop of the candidates’ dueling visions on the war in Iraq and how to handle the war going forward, particularly whether there should be a timetable for withdrawal or “time horizons” as spoken by President Bush or a measured troop presence for the foreseeable future to maintain stability.

Mr. Obama is on center stage today with his overseas trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, and Mr. McCain is hitting back from home with attacks that he has been right all along in achieving stability in the war zone through sustained support of President Bush’s troop buildup over this year.

On Mr. McCain’s Op-Ed, Matt Drudge posted online what he said was the original submission by Mr. McCain. According to his post, the senator wrote about Mr. 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.”

Tucker Bounds, a McCain campaign spokesman, issued this statement: “John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times.”

Times officials said that the decision not to publish Mr. McCain’s submission should not be considered a total rejection of the article by the presumptive Republican nominee. Rather, David Shipley, editor of the Op-Ed page, kicked back the original version while offering suggestions for changes and revision.

Here’s Mr. Shipley’s email response on Friday to Michael Goldfarb, a member of the McCain team and frequent writer for the senator’s blog, McCainreport:

Dear Mr. Goldfarb,

Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.

I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the Op-Ed page.

However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach.

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.

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. It would also have to lay out 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.

I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. …

Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.

Sincerely,

David Shipley

Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page and Op-Ed, issued this statement today about the process undergone by editors in reviewing submissions:

It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission.

We look forward to publishing Senator McCain’s views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996.

The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the pesidential primaries. We take his views very seriously.

(In full disclosure, I worked as the deputy Op-Ed editor under Mr. Shipley during the mid-to-latter part of 2004, and it was policy then not to publish direct responses to Op-Ed columns already in print. Very rarely would a direct counterpoint to an Op-Ed be published; more often the response would be directed to Letters to the Editor. But dueling candidate Op-Eds sometimes rise to a different level, when they go beyond back-and-forth or standard talking points that everyone is familiar with.

That said, I should also say there is an enormous firewall between the editorial/Op-Ed side and the news operation. We on the news side had no input, nor intelligence, per se of Mr. McCain’s article, nor did we know that Mr. Shipley requested revisions. That holds true for all submissions to Op-Ed.)

[Guest *Autonomous*]

The Loony Leftists, which are always preaching about the Constitution, should be outraged that the NY Slimes refused to print McCain's op-ed

piece on the war in Iraq because his article didn't include a date for troop removal. I didn't think the Slimes could sink any lower but it looks like

they've done it. They didn't agree with the contents of McCain's article so they wouldn't print it. A newspaper censoring an op-ed article

submitted by a presidential candidate is certainly a first for America.

I'm wondering if the Loonies, who want foreign terrorists to receive the full protection of the Constitution will agree with the Simes violating the

Constitutional rights of an American presidential candidate. My guess is the Slimes will get a pass (it's all Bush's fault).

Btw-no one has a Constitutional right to be published in a newspaper. Newspapers are a private business, so there is no free speech issue here. If he could make a case that they were showing unfair discrimination he would have gone to a lawyer, not Faux News. He knows he has nothing and needs the Rightwing Retards like you to be convinced of this story. They've printed McCain before, and if he would have written a better article they would have printed him this time.

[Guest TheoryCat]

This coming from a guy that is worried about the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border:

[Guest Paul]

The Loony Leftists, which are always preaching about the Constitution, should be outraged that the NY Slimes refused to print McCain's op-ed

piece on the war in Iraq because his article didn't include a date for troop removal. I didn't think the Slimes could sink any lower but it looks like

they've done it. They didn't agree with the contents of McCain's article so they wouldn't print it. A newspaper censoring an op-ed article

submitted by a presidential candidate is certainly a first for America.

I'm wondering if the Loonies, who want foreign terrorists to receive the full protection of the Constitution will agree with the Simes violating the

Constitutional rights of an American presidential candidate. My guess is the Slimes will get a pass (it's all Bush's fault).

This post is a perfect illustration of how far the radical right is from our American system of laws and way of life. Neither John McCain nor anyone else has a Constitutional right to have his opinions published in the New York Times. The Times is a privately owned newspaper, not an arm of any government. It receives many submissions for publication every day, most of which it turns down – just like publishing houses turn down most books and most record companies turn down most would-be recording stars. It’s not censorship, but an editorial decision about which submissions are most worthy of publication. Because the Times is privately owned, it has no obligation to give a reason for rejecting a submission, and usually it doesn’t.

However, because McCain is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, it did give a reason in this instance, and it’s a good one. McCain apparently wrote about victory in Iraq, but refused to define what “victory” meant. The military objective was accomplished five years ago, when Saddam Hussein was overthrown. Since then, our military has been trying to accomplish a political objective, but the war’s supporters keep moving the goal posts. If the political situation is bad, they argue, we must stay. But now that violence is down, and even after we have been asked by the Iraqi president to leave, McCain, Bush, et. al., still argue that we must stay. This is Orwellian doubletalk, and the Times properly called McCain on it.

The New York Times readers expect a high level of quality. Op-Ed articles should be better than vehicles for cheap propaganda. McCain’s submission did not meet that standard, so the Times rejected it. They were right to do so. However, right or wrong, this is not a Constitutional violation because there is no state action.

[Guest Guest]

The Loony Leftists, which are always preaching about the Constitution, should be outraged that the NY Slimes refused to print McCain's op-ed

piece on the war in Iraq because his article didn't include a date for troop removal. I didn't think the Slimes could sink any lower but it looks like

they've done it. They didn't agree with the contents of McCain's article so they wouldn't print it. A newspaper censoring an op-ed article

submitted by a presidential candidate is certainly a first for America.

I'm wondering if the Loonies, who want foreign terrorists to receive the full protection of the Constitution will agree with the Simes violating the

Constitutional rights of an American presidential candidate. My guess is the Slimes will get a pass (it's all Bush's fault).

This guy doesn't seem to care about the truth at all. The Times rejected McCain's Op-Ed piece not because he didn't include a date for troop withdrawal, but because he refused to say what he meant by victory. McCain was making "victory" just another excuse for staying in the war. The Times saw this as propaganda and declined to publish it.

It's ridiculous to call this censorship. Newspapers reject submissions every day.

And it's plain wrong to say that the Times violated the Constitution. A newspaper doesn't have to publish what someone else writes for them.

But since "Patriot" raised the argument, maybe he can explain what the standard should be. Should all newspapers be required to print everything submitted to them? Or only big newspapers? What's defined as a big newspaper? Or should they just be required to print what presidential candidates submit? What if the candidate submits 100,000 words? How about 1,000,000 words? How about a candidate for senator, or governor? How about a mayor? Town clerk? What if every candidate for every office writes 1,000 words and demands to be published? If you're going to require private newspapers to print things, what's your standard? More important, what's your basis?

[Guest Guest]

Now that we’ve seen the radical right’s distortion of what happened, here are the facts. David Shipley of the Times wrote to McCain's people, as follows.

Dear Mr. Goldfarb,

Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.

I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the Op-Ed page.

However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach.

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.

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. It would also have to lay out 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.

I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. …

Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.

Sincerely,

David Shipley

Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page and Op-Ed, issued this statement today about the process undergone by editors in reviewing submissions:

It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission.

We look forward to publishing Senator McCain’s views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996.

The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously.

In other words, the Times wants something that lays out McCain’s ideas about what we should do, just like they required Obama to set forth his ideas. That’s a perfectly responsible position to take. Of course, if McCain had a coherent and responsible to offer, he would have accepted the Times’ offer and rewritten his piece to contain a specific plan and rationale.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07...e-mccain-op-ed/

[Manscape]

The Loony Leftists, which are always preaching about the Constitution, should be outraged that the NY Slimes refused to print McCain's op-ed

piece on the war in Iraq because his article didn't include a date for troop removal. I didn't think the Slimes could sink any lower but it looks like

they've done it. They didn't agree with the contents of McCain's article so they wouldn't print it. A newspaper censoring an op-ed article

submitted by a presidential candidate is certainly a first for America.

I'm wondering if the Loonies, who want foreign terrorists to receive the full protection of the Constitution will agree with the Simes violating the

Constitutional rights of an American presidential candidate. My guess is the Slimes will get a pass (it's all Bush's fault).

1- What does the US Constitution have to do with Bulgeface not getting his spew printed in the NY Times?

2- Has it occurred to you that perhaps BULGEFACE is not worth reading?

3- Loonies is a term reserved for those deadenders that would vote to empower another Republican prezzy after two terms of Monkey boy's trainwreck..........and to prop up BULGEFACE McPain as a candidate is more America in the toilet.

Sorry deadender........for all the pummelings you've taken and will take in this venue.........but just think.........the ACLU is on your side should you become a helpless victim of injustice..........

[Guest Guest]

My guess is as usual you've misrepresented the story. From what I read from those unblinded by tin-foil hats the Times objection to McCain's piece was it was nothing but an Obama attack, they choose to leave things like that to nitwits like PatRat.

[Guest Kearny Conservative]

My guess is as usual you've misrepresented the story. From what I read from those unblinded by tin-foil hats the Times objection to McCain's piece was it was nothing but an Obama attack, they choose to leave things like that to nitwits like PatRat.

Patriot's post certainly got all the Loonys panties in a bind. I guess the bottom line is this; The Times is only interested in leftist viewpoints and will not print articles with conservative views. It's no wonder their circulation has declined so much, their credibility is down the tubes.

[Bern]

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. It would also have to lay out 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.

The Times wants the McCain camp to articulate in concrete terms instead of spewing the "victory" word. Those folks at the Times are tough. Expecting real meat instead of bone.

And that was a McCain show stopper. To be followed by the usual right wing whining. Boo hoo, boo hoo, the Times did not post the article. Nothing has changed. The right wing have again shown they are whiny wussies.