Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Everything’s abortion Previous entry: Michael Savage: no apologies for autism remarks

Dear Sir/Madam: Thank you for your submission. Your work shows promise; unfortunately…

ChoadsConservativesMedia

John McCain gets a rejection letter.

In an e-mail to the McCain campaign, Opinion Page Editor David Shipley said he could not accept the piece as written, but would be “pleased, though, to look at another draft.”

“Let me suggest an approach,” he wrote Friday. “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.”

Shipley was, in fact, being quite polite, since what he probably should have said was “The Obama piece worked for me because it wasn’t a snot-covered tissue of lies.”

To make this point, [Obama] mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

 

 

 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Auguste on 06:20 PM • (4) Comments

God, Fox Noise yesterday was having a shit-fit over this.  They were trying to make it seem as if the NYT wanted McCain to write the same article as Obama and endorse time-limits instead of simply asking for details and specifics.

Assholes.  They don’t HAVE details and specifics b/c they LIE.  If they have to give detailed specific info, they can’t obfuscate.

Comment #1: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  07/22  at  09:53 AM

Shorter NYT: No, we will not publish an op-ed version of your standard attack ad for free.

Good for them.

Comment #2: Redshift  on  07/22  at  02:30 PM

I love this part:

Shipley, who was President Bill Clinton’s senior speechwriter from 1995 to 1997, had advised the McCain campaign that “the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.

Journalistic standards!  I can’t believe it.

Comment #3: keshmeshi  on  07/22  at  03:28 PM

Funny how Obama supporters say McCain has no substance, no plan, no clear solutions to the problems we as Americans face today and in the same breath go to great length to defend Obama’s plan for America which is…hmm…ah…well…oh yea! He’s going to change things. He (Obama) is nebulous at best in his outline for exactly how he’s going to change things. Now Hillary on the other hand was pretty clear as to what her plan was, some may not have agreed with her but she was pretty clear.

In my opinion, the Democratic party wasn’t interested in substance, they just wanted a win in November and figured Obama was the one who could beat the Republicans.  They didn’t want substance, they just wanted a win.  One thing’s for sure, They’re not getting substance but they might just get a win.

“...we should feed our children breakfast…”

I can see why people want to vote for him, very exciting words, real vision.

Comment #4: Jason  on  07/23  at  12:29 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.