What media bias?
This media bias:
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.'
...
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.'
Out-freakin'-rageous if true.
Nope, nope, nope, can't criticize the Obamessiah. Can't be done - surprised lightning has not struck Mr. McCain.
What a load of dingo's kidneys (to quote The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).
Posted by: Mommynator | Monday, July 21, 2008 at 02:14 PM
It has been explained to me that one of the most important functions of the media is to hold our government responsible, which I don’t necessarily disagree with.
However, who exactly holds the media responsible? It looks to me that the fox is guarding the henhouse.
The good news is the way things are going with the NYT’s stock, Mr. Shipley and the rest won’t be turning out that rag for long.
Posted by: tim aka The Godless Heathen | Monday, July 21, 2008 at 03:46 PM
For anyone interested, and you should be, for McCain’s editorial go here:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
A tease –
“The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.”
After reading you’ll know the real reason the NYT’s didn’t run the piece – McCain destroys Obama with some little things not high in the agenda of the MSM, Obama and his supporters - facts.
Posted by: tim aka The Godless Heathen | Monday, July 21, 2008 at 04:36 PM
re:'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,'
sounds like it needs to be translated as "It would be terrific to have McCain respond narrowly to the Anointed Obama's Campaign bullet points so we can tear them up."
Posted by: | Monday, July 21, 2008 at 07:23 PM
I am dismayed that we even still have a Dim Party at all, since it tried to collapse of its own weight so many times the last 15 years and remains solely because RINOS like McCain and his Gang of 14 kept propping it up.
I'm utterly dismayed that Obama is so close to the ballot for President at all.
Ditto, McCain.
I'm dismayed that Obama speaks of EXITING Iraq, and not of winning there.
I'm equally dismayed that McCain speaks more about stopping Americans from TORTURING, than he does of winning in Iraq.
That the latest GITMO ruling from the USSC was TO THE SPECS that McCain has been calling for, for YEARS, and NOT ONE MEDIA OUTLET, either MSM or INTERNET or TALK RADIO has mentioned that DOCUMENTED FACT, i.e., closing Gitmo, giving Civilian Trials to GITMO terrorists, with ACLU lawyers and Top Secret Classified Intelligence Habeaus Corpus for the terrorists and their lawyers.
Just like McCain asked for, over and over and over, the last several years.
WHY did the GOP insist he is "ELECTABLE" and the only one who could beat Hillary.
The DIMS beat her with OBAMA, how hard could it have been?
And Obama! ARGH!!!!
Can you just SEE George Washington's FACE?
After all they went through over the STAMP ACT?
Heavens Above!
What are we supposed to do?
How are we supposed to BLOCK OBAMA? With something that ACHIEVES THE GOALS of the VALUES IN QUESTION!
Somebody please tell me. Are we REALLY supposed to think that a McCain win is a VICTORY over what Obama STANDS FOR?
Because it only looks like a dueling pair of Liberals to me.
Posted by: Rose | Friday, July 25, 2008 at 01:08 AM
Rose,
Chill honey. A whole lot of us aren’t exactly big fans of McCain but you have to ask yourself, who would you rather have in the WH at this point, Obama or McCain? Sorry if you think the both the same, because you’d be sadly mistaken.
The GOP didn’t “insist he (McCain) is "ELECTABLE" and the only one who could beat Hillary”, the voters thought so, hence the primary results. It’s that simple.
Life is full of shitty choice, deal with it.
Now please, stop whining.It’s very un-Conservative.
Posted by: tim aka The Godless Heathen | Friday, July 25, 2008 at 10:04 AM
tim is correct, Rose.
We're voting for a President, not a Messiah (notwithstanding Obama's acolytes, disciples and fanatics).
He doesn't have to be perfect, just reasonable. He has to know that his first constitutional duty is to protect this country from our enemies, which McCain will do and Obama will not.
The rest can be argued (and will be).
Posted by: Mommynator | Friday, July 25, 2008 at 10:30 AM