All sorts of folks are atwitter about the New York Times’ latest editorial decision. Last week, they published a piece by Senator Barack Obama featuring his plan to end the war in Iraq. Senator John McCain submitted his own piece this week, and it was rejected. However, he was given a pat on the head and asked to try again.
Hot Air got the text of the rejection note, and it’s quite enlightening.
Here is the key paragraph, where Mr. Shipley — a former Bill Clinton speechwriter and the current Op-Ed Editor for the New York Times — says what sorts of changes would need to be made for Senator McCain’s essay:
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.
One key point of John McCain’s Iraq policy is NO TIMETABLES. As I understand it, he’s more interested in winning the war than studying a calendar.
So, in essence, the New York Times says they won’t publish John McCain’s response to Barack Obama’s essay unless McCain tosses aside the key point of his entire policy.
I’m tempted to be outraged at this incident, but then I remember — it’s only the New York Times.
It’s not like it’s over something that really matters any more.