TFormers Community > NY Times Rejects McCain Rebuttal To Obama Op-Ed

Cool Hand Lube

Jul 22 2008, 12:44 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/e...t_n_114079.html

Long and short, McCain just wanted to show again how much Obama is a BIG LIER DOODY PANTS, but ended up looking like a crochety old man. Go figure.

The NY Times' response to the McCain campaign on why they would not be running his piece:
"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."

Read McCain's piece HERE to see what they were talking about.

The Diesel

Jul 22 2008, 01:36 PM

The New York Times is a sad joke. The Huffington Post is one the biggest hate-mongering sites out there.

Hunter Rose

Jul 22 2008, 01:39 PM

Silly TIMES! Don't they know that Republicans don't need facts?!

Firebrandx

Jul 22 2008, 02:04 PM

QUOTE (Hunter Rose @ Jul 22 2008, 04:39 PM)

Silly TIMES! Don't they know that Republicans don't need facts?!

Funny, but Liberals are the WORST when it comes to facts. I always laugh when people on the left think they are better or more honest than people on the right. Its a silly game to get caught up in. Truth of the matter is, BOTH politcal parties are full of dishonest people. You're just being foolish if you think you're on the "honest" side.

As for the NY Slimes, they are a leftist rag, so why on earth would they even consider a counterpoint from McCain anyway? I would have been shocked if they didn't react in just this way.

Hobbes-timus Prime

Jul 22 2008, 02:20 PM

QUOTE (Firebrandx @ Jul 22 2008, 02:04 PM)

QUOTE (Hunter Rose @ Jul 22 2008, 04:39 PM)

Silly TIMES! Don't they know that Republicans don't need facts?!

Funny, but Liberals are the WORST when it comes to facts. I always laugh when people on the left think they are better or more honest than people on the right. Its a silly game to get caught up in. Truth of the matter is, BOTH politcal parties are full of dishonest people. You're just being foolish if you think you're on the "honest" side.

As for the NY Slimes, they are a leftist rag, so why on earth would they even consider a counterpoint from McCain anyway? I would have been shocked if they didn't react in just this way.

I love the middle-ground condemnation of partisan bickering sandwiched between assaults on the left. It gives me hope for the future of this nation.

Cadogen

Jul 22 2008, 02:44 PM

QUOTE (Firebrandx @ Jul 22 2008, 03:04 PM)

QUOTE (Hunter Rose @ Jul 22 2008, 04:39 PM)

Silly TIMES! Don't they know that Republicans don't need facts?!

Funny, but politicians in general are the WORST when it comes to facts.

Fixed for truth

Cool Hand Lube

Jul 22 2008, 03:38 PM

Actually by "facts" I was referring to John McCain for ONCE standing up and saying what his damn policies are, instead of saying, "We'll win the war on terror, and everything else will just sort of work itself out!" That's been the attitude of the Bush administration and, well, it hasn't worked out so swell. And if that IS his strategy, then explain HOW you will win the war on terror.

I was not referring to truthfulness or dishonesty in any way. These people are politicians after all, and they have made careers out of lying. To think otherwise would be very naive. But where (IMO) Obama was very forthcoming in his editorial in the Times about his withdrawl strategy/timeline, McCain and the GOP have the whole, "All our country's problems are psychological, you bunch of whiners" attitudes about it.

( . Y . )

Jul 22 2008, 03:55 PM

QUOTE (Hobbes-timus Prime @ Jul 22 2008, 05:20 PM)

QUOTE (Firebrandx @ Jul 22 2008, 02:04 PM)

QUOTE (Hunter Rose @ Jul 22 2008, 04:39 PM)

Silly TIMES! Don't they know that Republicans don't need facts?!

Funny, but Liberals are the WORST when it comes to facts. I always laugh when people on the left think they are better or more honest than people on the right. Its a silly game to get caught up in. Truth of the matter is, BOTH politcal parties are full of dishonest people. You're just being foolish if you think you're on the "honest" side.

As for the NY Slimes, they are a leftist rag, so why on earth would they even consider a counterpoint from McCain anyway? I would have been shocked if they didn't react in just this way.

I love the middle-ground condemnation of partisan bickering sandwiched between assaults on the left. It gives me hope for the future of this nation.

Is that what it gives you? I think it gave me diarrhea.

Nomolos

Jul 22 2008, 04:03 PM

since when does the times need facts to write a story?

Lord Madhammer

Jul 22 2008, 04:07 PM

QUOTE (Nomolos @ Jul 22 2008, 07:03 PM)

since when does the times need facts to write a story?

Certainly not before the invasion of Iraq OH NO HE DI'NT

Sorry to break the narrative, but the Times was going along with Bush just like everyone else in the national media in 2002... and let's not forget that whole "oh isn't Donald Rumsfeld secksy" thing... *shudder*

The national media are timid by nature, and news is a product to be sold. Liberal bias? Conservative bias? That would imply a belief in something other than cash.

Nomolos

Jul 22 2008, 04:09 PM

QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Jul 22 2008, 05:07 PM)

QUOTE (Nomolos @ Jul 22 2008, 07:03 PM)

since when does the times need facts to write a story?

Certainly not before the invasion of Iraq OH NO HE DI'NT

Sorry to break the narrative, but the Times was going along with Bush just like everyone else in the national media in 2002... and let's not forget that whole "oh isn't Donald Rumsfeld secksy" thing... *shudder*

The national media are timid by nature, and news is a product to be sold. Liberal bias? Conservative bias? That would imply a belief in something other than cash.

DON HENLEY'D

The Diesel

Jul 22 2008, 04:20 PM

QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Jul 22 2008, 07:07 PM)

QUOTE (Nomolos @ Jul 22 2008, 07:03 PM)

since when does the times need facts to write a story?

Certainly not before the invasion of Iraq OH NO HE DI'NT

Sorry to break the narrative, but the Times was going along with Bush just like everyone else in the national media in 2002... and let's not forget that whole "oh isn't Donald Rumsfeld secksy" thing... *shudder*

The national media are timid by nature, and news is a product to be sold. Liberal bias? Conservative bias? That would imply a belief in something other than cash.

Yeah, that was 2002. Seriously, you can't see the bias in the Times?

But the Times isn't anything to get upset about. I really despise the Huffington Post, though. Those are some serious hate mongers over there.

Hobbes-timus Prime

Jul 22 2008, 04:39 PM

QUOTE (Cool Hand Lube @ Jul 22 2008, 03:38 PM)

And if that IS his strategy, then explain HOW you will win the war on terror.

The same way you win a War On Drugs - spend obscene amounts of money on the problem from now until the end of time and pretend it's under control.

Note to American Citizens: When our politicians declare war on non-sentient, non-sovereign, and/or intangible nouns of a ridiculously general nature, please do not drink the resulting Kool-Aid.

Glue

Jul 22 2008, 04:58 PM

QUOTE (Hobbes-timus Prime @ Jul 22 2008, 04:39 PM)

QUOTE (Cool Hand Lube @ Jul 22 2008, 03:38 PM)

And if that IS his strategy, then explain HOW you will win the war on terror.

The same way you win a War On Drugs - spend obscene amounts of money on the problem from now until the end of time and pretend it's under control.

Note to American Citizens: When our politicians declare war on non-sentient, non-sovereign, and/or intangible nouns of a ridiculously general nature, please do not drink the resulting Kool-Aid.

Hahahaha.. this just made me

while in the library an' got inquisitive looks.

"Being a social/cultural/financial scapegoat is the right of all non-sentient, non-sovereign, intangible nouns (of a ridiculously generaly nature)."

Haggisjin

Jul 22 2008, 06:20 PM

I was going to post this... but I've been accused of McCain hate-mongering... for... you know..... accurately portraying his complete lack of substance when it comes to his policies.

Ellipses are fun!

Lord Madhammer

Jul 22 2008, 07:19 PM

QUOTE (The Diesel @ Jul 22 2008, 07:20 PM)

QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Jul 22 2008, 07:07 PM)

QUOTE (Nomolos @ Jul 22 2008, 07:03 PM)

since when does the times need facts to write a story?

Certainly not before the invasion of Iraq OH NO HE DI'NT

Sorry to break the narrative, but the Times was going along with Bush just like everyone else in the national media in 2002... and let's not forget that whole "oh isn't Donald Rumsfeld secksy" thing... *shudder*

The national media are timid by nature, and news is a product to be sold. Liberal bias? Conservative bias? That would imply a belief in something other than cash.

Yeah, that was 2002. Seriously, you can't see the bias in the Times?

But the Times isn't anything to get upset about. I really despise the Huffington Post, though. Those are some serious hate mongers over there.

I think that people sometimes fail to distinguish between the news page and the editorial page, for one thing. And cries of bias only emerge when a story appears that's unfavorable to someone's ideology or politics. By now it's just a ridiculous meme that prevents people from actually listening to what these media outlets are saying.

I'm not saying that bias is imaginary, just that it's not as systemic or conspiratorial as people would have us believe. Ultimately I think it matters 0%.

( . Y . )

Jul 22 2008, 07:26 PM

Yeah....these are editorial pieces. Does it really matter? I read ignorant stuff in the A section everyday from lovely citizens of Huntsville, all allowed by the Times. But I don't fault them for what's in the editorial section.

ROSEDOGGYDOG

Jul 23 2008, 08:32 AM

I was wondering how long it would take for this topic to get on here...so with that said, its easy to see why they say Obama has something new to say. When you change your mind, you'll be taking a new stance then *poof* you've said something new - hence the "offering of new information".

Still is rofl "Can you please be more like Obama...and please set yourself ..."

I do like this piece written by the LA Times on the subject...

QUOTE

"We look forward to publishing Sen. McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past," the statement added, noting that the newspaper has published "at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Sen. McCain since 1996."

Shipley may have been on slippery ground in touting the "new information" that Obama had provided; little leaps out in a rereading. Indeed, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee introduced several of his specifics with the phrases "As I've said many times" and "As I have often said."

The Drudge post asserts that the rebuff "has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles."

It's possible that top Republicans are delighted to have a fresh reason to flog a newspaper that is a tried-and-true target for conservatives. And the flap probably has called far more attention to the McCain article -- run in its entirety by Drudge -- than would have been the case had it cropped up, without fanfare, inside the Times.

and huffington post

Lord Madhammer

Jul 23 2008, 09:26 AM

ROSEDD, I really think you don't want to play the "spot the flip-flops" game. IMO McCain would have been a much stronger contender for my vote if he had simply held to his original positions.

ROSEDOGGYDOG

Jul 23 2008, 10:03 AM

QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Jul 23 2008, 10:26 AM)

ROSEDD, I really think you don't want to play the "spot the flip-flops" game. IMO McCain would have been a much stronger contender for my vote if he had simply held to his original positions.

Seeing that Obama is the one who keeps changing his time table, I think thats what they wanted from McCain. Like the LA Times said, whats new?

Lord Madhammer

Jul 23 2008, 10:05 AM

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't... if he had been inflexible, people would have said that he was "out of touch".

There's always a reason to vote against somebody, and anything can be turned into a negative. Now if any of these arguments were coming from people who hadn't already picked a candidate (or a party) to back, then they might carry a little more weight.

But just hearing partisans talk smack about the guy in the other party means zero to me. What are they gonna do, compliment him?

ROSEDOGGYDOG

Jul 23 2008, 10:54 AM

QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Jul 23 2008, 11:05 AM)

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't... if he had been inflexible, people would have said that he was "out of touch".

Agreed on the do/don't but with how detemined/passionate(sp?) Obama was at first with pulling out to changing multiple times it makes him look like an azz - That also goes for McCain and his 50-100yrs.

QUOTE

But just hearing partisans talk smack about the guy in the other party means zero to me. What are they gonna do, compliment him?

McCain vs. Huckabee, maybe Huck will still get the VP nod.

Lord Madhammer

Jul 23 2008, 11:00 AM

QUOTE (ROSEDOGGYDOG @ Jul 23 2008, 01:54 PM)

QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Jul 23 2008, 11:05 AM)

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't... if he had been inflexible, people would have said that he was "out of touch".

Agreed on the do/don't but with how detemined/passionate(sp?) Obama was at first with pulling out to changing multiple times it makes him look like an azz - That also goes for McCain and his 50-100yrs.

Well honestly I think that the "we need to get out now stuff" was to play to the primary audience... and to contrast himself with Clinton, who was definitely on the wrong side of the issue for a Democrat. He's adopting a more middle-of-the-road position now, which is fine with me. But he had to talk all that stuff in the primaries to get all the left-wing sheeples to vote for him.

Nomolos

Jul 23 2008, 11:16 AM

QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Jul 23 2008, 12:00 PM)

QUOTE (ROSEDOGGYDOG @ Jul 23 2008, 01:54 PM)

QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Jul 23 2008, 11:05 AM)

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't... if he had been inflexible, people would have said that he was "out of touch".

Agreed on the do/don't but with how detemined/passionate(sp?) Obama was at first with pulling out to changing multiple times it makes him look like an azz - That also goes for McCain and his 50-100yrs.

Well honestly I think that the "we need to get out now stuff" was to play to the primary audience... and to contrast himself with Clinton, who was definitely on the wrong side of the issue for a Democrat. He's adopting a more middle-of-the-road position now, which is fine with me. But he had to talk all that stuff in the primaries to get all the left-wing sheeples to vote for him.

the same could be said of Mccain.

Glue

Jul 23 2008, 03:10 PM

Right now, only way Obama could be

to me is if he suddenly wanted to be there for 101 years.

Lord Madhammer

Jul 23 2008, 05:27 PM

QUOTE (Nomolos @ Jul 23 2008, 02:16 PM)

QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Jul 23 2008, 12:00 PM)

QUOTE (ROSEDOGGYDOG @ Jul 23 2008, 01:54 PM)

QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ Jul 23 2008, 11:05 AM)

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't... if he had been inflexible, people would have said that he was "out of touch".

Agreed on the do/don't but with how detemined/passionate(sp?) Obama was at first with pulling out to changing multiple times it makes him look like an azz - That also goes for McCain and his 50-100yrs.

Well honestly I think that the "we need to get out now stuff" was to play to the primary audience... and to contrast himself with Clinton, who was definitely on the wrong side of the issue for a Democrat. He's adopting a more middle-of-the-road position now, which is fine with me. But he had to talk all that stuff in the primaries to get all the left-wing sheeples to vote for him.

the same could be said of Mccain.

Except that McCain started out more centrist and has moved to the right. Like I've said, I'm a fan of McCain eight years ago...