« Alleged Libertarian Bob Barr Endorses Goracle's Call for Totalitarian Measures | Main | Muslim Terrorists Providing Security for BHO »

July 21, 2008

NY Times Refuses to Run McCain Rebuttal

The New York Times does have one redeeming quality: its open-minded editorial page. Just last year it ran an editorial by a representative of the Islamic terror group Hamas. As its Public Editor Clark Hoyt explained:

Op-ed pages are for debate, but if you get only one side, that's not debate. And that's not healthy.

However, there are limits:

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.

These Republicans are missing the big difference between McCain and Obama. McCain is wrong and Obama is right — about everything. Just ask anyone in the mainstream media.

Voters need to be protected against being swayed by the wrong candidate. Thank you New York Times, for your willingness to sacrifice even the most basic standards of fairness and journalistic integrity to your higher calling of civic service!

On tips from Refuter of Liberal Vermin.

Posted by Van Helsing at July 21, 2008 11:40 AM


Brought to you by the fair and balanced media.

Posted by: Pam at July 21, 2008 12:09 PM

No, there is no Leftist and Liberal bias in the way the MSM is doing everything to get Osama, darn, Obama elected. No bias what so ever. It’s just not true!

The below item will piss off a number of veterans and active service members. Obama is now, apparently, an experienced overseas military authority……not.

Check the straight face of the 'talking head' in the video...

NBC News Refers to Obama's Trip as 'Tour of Duty'

Posted by: Oiao at July 21, 2008 12:36 PM

Obama can do whatever he wants with the MSM Press. He can do no wrong.

Even though they do not work for him (legally, we all know they are working hard for him), he can tell them what to do.

A taxpayer voting for Obama would be like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

Obama Campaign issues Dress Code for Female Reporters

Posted by: Oiao at July 21, 2008 12:52 PM

As I said in a different comment thread, anyone doubting the existence of a liberal media bias need look no further. And yet there are people that will deny it until they are blue in the face.

Posted by: CoderInCrisis at July 21, 2008 1:28 PM

"Blue in the face"? Hahaha! I get it!

Posted by: Lyle at July 21, 2008 1:33 PM

How can this be? The media is controled by CONSERVATIVES!

At least, that's what LIBERALS say when the news outlets don't toe the Leftist party line.

Posted by: KHarn at July 21, 2008 1:55 PM

You know, this was impressively stupid on the NYT's part.

Even if McCain's piece (which I've not read) is a real snoozer, they should have run it anyway just to maintain a facade of impartiality. So it's boring? Great, for their candidate, and it's not like their circulation will drop solely because of one boring op-ed. And if it's appallingly written, it would just make McCain look bad.

So why on earth would they not run it?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 21, 2008 1:55 PM

The following says about all we need to know concerning the NY Times:

"It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion."

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

All quotes Josef Goebbles

Posted by: matt at July 21, 2008 2:08 PM

Lyle: Pun not (completely) intended, but it works. ;^)

Jay, that was my thought when I saw this. What does the NYT have to gain by not running McCain's rebuttal? All I can figure is that McCain's piece destroyed Obama's plan and exposed it for the poorly-though-out, leftist-pandering, radical-muslim-appeasing, say-nothing crap that it is, and decided to "take one for the team" so as not to make the man they have invested so much time and money in look like the blithering idiot he is.

Unless someone has a better answer.

Posted by: CoderInCrisis at July 21, 2008 2:11 PM

How many more staff did the NYT have to fire in the past couple of months due to poor circulation and advertising revenues?

They will be out of business soon anyway.

Posted by: Oiao at July 21, 2008 3:17 PM

Coder, I doubt that the NYT is so altruistic as to take one for the team. My default explanation for this sort of event is just garden-variety stupidity, rather than calculation or malice.

My guess is that McCain's piece made them squirm a bit and so subconsciously spurred them to look for a pretext on which to exclude it.

It's safe to say that the piece must not make McCain look bad, or they'd probably have published it on the front page in the font size used for declarations of war.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 21, 2008 3:27 PM

Why is it that THE N Y TIMES has the unique ability to make conservatives foam at the mouth and say incandescently silly things ? First, If the TIMES does not want to publish McCain's op-ed piece, surely Rupert Murdoch's many newspapers will happily publish it - perhaps it will be read aloud on Fox News,

The lefties claim the right wing ( Rupert Murdoch etc) "control the media" and the right wing claims that the liberals ( The NY Times etc) "control the media" - in fact, neither side "controls" the media and never has, and even if they did, the rise of the blogosphere would have put an end to it.

Maybe the Times decided McCain's piece was crap and maybe it is. Maybe it was brilliant and the Times' was wrong. None of us have seen it and don't know. What I do know is that if John McCain wants to put his views out there in the public eye he can do that - any time he wants. To think an editorial decision by one newspaper reflects some vast liberal media conspiracy is raging, certifiable, paranoia. TAKE YOUR MEDS

Posted by: Metatron at July 21, 2008 3:28 PM


I don't think there's some "vast liberal media conspiracy", and I don't think anyone else here said that either. The existence of a bias does not necessarily mean there's a grand conspiracy at work. Maybe you're projecting your moonbat conspiracy theory tendencies onto others? I don't know, but your assertion does not follow logically from what the others have written.

The explanation for media bias is actually pretty simple. The great majority of people working the MSM are liberal, and they have self-identified as such in multiple polls. So in the best case scenario, some of their personal biases come through in spite of efforts to maintain impartiality. The ideological problem is compounded though because liberal media people are surrounded by other liberal media people. So their whole frame of reference tends to be badly skewed to the left. Whatever the causes though, the media have a big leftward tilt that is becoming increasingly apparent to everyone except hard-left drones. It's up to 49% now who think the MSM is stumping for Obama. the other 51% either doesn't pay attention to the news or are leftists who are in denial.

Now this thing with the Times is an easy call. They probably shouldn't have published an op-ed by either candidate, but once they published Obama, they're pretty well obliged to publish McCain. They have an especially lousy track record when it comes to treating the left better than the right, so I'm not inclined to give them any benefit of the doubt as to the excuses they may provide.

Posted by: forest at July 21, 2008 4:20 PM

"Maybe the Times decided McCain's piece was crap and maybe it is. Maybe it was brilliant and the Times' was wrong. None of us have seen it and don't know."

Posted by: Metatron at July 21, 2008 3:28 PM

Problem is Metatron, the piece, as submitted by John McCain was posted today by Matt Drudge here:

So yes, we have seen it and yes, we do know.

Posted by: Refuter of Liberal Vermin at July 21, 2008 4:46 PM

Metatron, you missed the point entirely. The point was that it wasn't the NYT's place to judge McCain's piece as good, bad, or indifferent. That's for the readers to do. Having given one candidate a platform from which to speak, it was only reasonable to give the other one as well.

And if McCain's piece is crap, then he'll be sunk by it. Since it's clear that the NYT wants to have Obama's baby, if they had any brains, and the piece was crap, they would run it.

More likely, however, it contained pointed ripostes of our Savior's analyses, and that's why they rejected it.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 21, 2008 5:52 PM


Cracks in the liberal left Media on Obama's Warrior Tour (searching overseas for some tiny bit of street cred - even though he looks like a little kid on a field trip).

Andrea on Obama Trip: 'What Some Would Call Fake Interviews'

Posted by: Oiao at July 21, 2008 5:53 PM

Posted by: Smoke TNT at July 21, 2008 7:24 PM

You are now entering the Twilight Zone. (Huffington Post)

What Obama Can Teach Jesus

Posted by: Smoke TNT at July 21, 2008 8:34 PM

The last one is satire from Greg Gutfield, so... take it how you will.

Posted by: Smoke TNT at July 21, 2008 8:39 PM


JULY 22, 2008

Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:08:15 AM by Gene Lalor


The New York Times, which last week printed an op-ed piece by Senator Obama on the Iraq War, has rejected an article on the same subject by Senator John McCain. Says editorial page editor, David Shipley, “It would be terrific to have an article from Sen. McCain that mirrors Sen. Obama’s piece.” (

As our Black brethren might say, “Say what???”

Since the “paper of record,” “the old, gray lady,” has now become a senile, old, corrupt, censorial b*tch determined to dictate rather than report and editorially comment upon the news, we hereby proudly re-print in its entirety that piece written by John McCain:

(For McCain's op-ed, please see

If you agree that the piece by McCain should have been printed as a fair counterbalance to Obama’s opinions, please consider writing a letter of protest to the NYT at, email address: ASKTHETIMES@NYTIMES.COM, street address: NYT, ONE CITY HALL, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10007.

It’s time the Times learns that all the news that fits doesn’t fit anymore.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Posted by: Gene Lalor at July 21, 2008 11:23 PM