McCain’s Op-Ed Vs. Obama’s
Tuesday’s New York Post has an op-ed by John McCain making conservatives all-aflutter because the New York Times wouldn’t publish it without revisions. McCainiacs are claiming this is proof of liberal media bias, in spite of the fact that even then-President Clinton had pieces rejected by the Times, says former staffer Jennifer Palmieri.
When I worked for President Clinton, “The New York Times” rejected many op- eds written by him as a sitting president of the United States. They don’t just give up space to a candidate because their opponent has space. You can’t just go — you can’t go to “The New York Times” editorial page and say I want to say what’s wrong with the other guy. They want to leverage their space, which is very valuable, to force you to say something you haven’t said before. And I think that they turned down McCain not because they like Obama but because McCain, all he was doing in his piece was criticizing Obama and they wanted him to put him on the spot to say more.
While Obama’s editorial gave specific actions he would take in Iraq, McCain’s piece largely bashed Obama without any plan of his own, save for “victory”. Besides, much of what McCain says is wrong, as Think Progress notes. Here is some of what McCain says, followed by my comments:
Progress has been due mainly to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Sen. Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent…Now Sen. Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Progress has been due mainly to getting the Sunni’s to participate with coalition forces, which has been a largely responsible for the reduction in violence, in addition to the stand-down of the Mahdi army. And Barack hasn’t said there isn’t “any” political progress.
…the US embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.”
And guess who is deciding that 15 benchmarks are “satisfactory”? The White House.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Maliki has endorsed his timetable – when the Iraqi prime minister has merely said that he’d like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of US troops at some unspecified future point.
No, it’s the White House that wants a “general time horizon“. Maliki has endorsed Obama’s timeline, and only backed off when the White House read him the riot act.
Sen. Obama has said that he’d consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say.
Yes, he’d consult with commanders on the ground to determine the best way to leave Iraq in a safe fashion so that we “retain our gains” there.
I’m dismayed that he never talks about winning the war – only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will – and a triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us.
I’ve yet to hear what “win” means, according to McCain, and how it can be achieved. How do we know when we’ve won? What then would be McCain’s exit strategy? What are McCains benchmarks for “victory”?
What I love about conservatives who are bitching and moaning about McCain being rejected by the NYT is that these are the same people who love Fox News, which routinely rejects opposing points of views. Fox News’ guest list is more than 70% Republican. It’s on-air commentators are all almost exclusively Republican.
Wallace, Hume, O’Reilly, Cavuto, E.D. Hill, Fox & Friends, Gigot, Kasich, Beltway Boys, etc…
Where’s the outrage from conservatives that Fox News basically blacklists liberals and Democrats and only allows liberals on who conform to their point of view? Good little kiss-asses like Juan Williams and Kirsten Powers? And former Democrats Pat Caddell and Tammy Bruce, who the Fox News channel lies about, and falsely claims are still Democrats (Despite being registered Republicans and working for Republican politicians).
Hypocrisy, conservatism is thy name.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
You’re very correct about most of Fox’s opinion commentators, Tom, and I would include the Fox and Friends gang in this group, although Brian is a bit more moderate than Doocey and Gretchen.
Really, though, Alan is the only true liberal who gets major airtime, and even then he has to sit next to Sean Hannity often with a panel of conservatives where he is the only liberal.
I also think you’re right about a lot of the “liberals” that Fox sends on to kiss ass – people like Susan Estrich and Kirsten Powers who either are “embarassed” to be a Democrat, as Susan has admitted, or, in Kirsten’s case, truly are what the Daily Kos has falsely accused Alan of, weak and unable to make a good argument.
Just my 2 cents anyway.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
And to be perfectly frank, The New York Post is possibly the worst propaganda outfit in the United States that relies on sensationalism and tabloid-style celebrity “news” to sell papers. I think it’s fair to say that the New York Times leans a little to the left, but to say that the Post is this oasis of journalistic excellence is absolutely ridiculous.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
“Sen. Obama has said that he’d consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say.”
Perhaps not.
Generals don’t get paid to decide whether we stay or go. The president decides that, and then it’s up the generals to figure out how to get it done.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
More Democrats watch Fox News than any other cable news channel
FNC (31% Democratic): 491,350 Dem viewers
CNN (45% Democratic): 432,450 Dem viewers
MSNBC (48% Democratic): 328,800 Dem viewers
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Notice the percentage who watch it though, Vince.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
And if you run those numbers, 61% of Democrats watch some cable network other than Fox.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Wow, this is one of Alan’s threads that I need to check the links for before commenting. Gotta educate myself.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Very few people watch ANY cable news.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
So if you change a couple of words in the vocabulary, you’re not lying and you’re not a hypocrite?
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Alan lives on another planet. His views are way, way out there!
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I think Hill and Kondracke (sp?) are Democrats.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Sorry Vince, people can call themselves whatever they want, that doesn’t make them. Tammy Bruce and Pat Caddell call themselves Democrats, but they aren’t.
The way you REALLY measure who’s watching Fox is by WHO they’re VOTING for.
So, why don’t you show me a poll of Fox viewers which points out how many Fox viewers intend to vote for Obama, and how many intend to vote for McCain?
That should be interesting. In 2004 it was 70% for Bush and 25% for Kerry.
Pathetic. CNN’s audience was more Republican than Fox’s was Democratic.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
“I think Hill and Kondracke (sp?) are Democrats.”
-WFG
Wow, you’re a complete moron, aren’t you? E.D. Hill, who compared Obama to a terrorist, and called Hillary Clinton a “limousine liberal”? Yeah, I’m sure she’s a left-wing partisan. LOL.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
The reason I said it is because I believe I heard her claim as such. Besides which, I prefaced myself with the phrase “I think” because I know I might be wrong. I was not intending to attack the Democratic party by any sort of unwanted association. I was only offering my own understanding of the facts. Also, current, even long standing, party platforms are not withstanding of the fact that a person’s valid party registration card, for whatever party, is all that’s required for him to claim himself as a member of that party. Not being liberal does not mean Hill is not a Democrat. But, again, I won’t fight over it. If I’m mistaken, It’s alright.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
What you’re saying is ridiculous. People often pretend to be a member of the other party to pretend that their partisan attacks aren’t so “partisan”. Case in point, Pat Caddell and Tammy Bruce. Both voted for Bush. Both left the Democratic Party more than 10 years ago (Caddell left TWENTY years ago). Both voted against Gore in 2000. Both support Republicans vocally on air and criticize Democrats.
They can call themselves what they want. But a RESPONSIBLE news organization should not identify them as they choose, but as objectively as they are. If there is someone who starts appearing on MSNBC claiming to be a “Republican” but supports Obama and does nothing but trash Republicans, they should identify him as an “obama supporter”. Fox News make the choice not only to call Caddell and Bruce “Democrats”, but “liberals”. And that’s where it gets to be a flat out lie. Because Bruce repeatedly states, off-air, on radio and at speeches, that she is a CONSERVATIVE. But Fox identifies her as a liberal, and she plays along. They’re flat out lying to their audience.
Don’t expect Alan to correct that lie, however. Instead, he always helps Bruce attacks the Democratic Party by throwing her softball questions like “Why aren’t you a Democrat anymore?” “Why don’t you like Clinton”.
He simply sets up her talking points for her.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Hill’s self-described party affiliation and how FN should characterize her are separate issues.
Furthermore, you are describing logic as being ridiculous, which itself seems rather absurd.
Now I gave you the opportunity to either ignore me and not apologize for your overreaction and arrogantly based insult, or to apologize, but you chose to do neither. So be it. Now follow this carefully, John.
Tom at least implied Hill is a Republican.
I said I think she’s a Democrat.
Whether Tom specifically meant she is a Republican in the ideological sense, that in now way disproves my stated intent of referring solely to her claimed party affiliation.
Unless you have a standard of regularly checking people for proof of party membership, the appropriate assumption is of sincerity when a person makes such a claim, and party registration is objective evidence. What’s not objective is a standard of ideological adherence, unless designed by the party authority for the purpose of reviewing, revoking, or reinstating, a person’s membership.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
E.D. Hill works as a substitute host for Bill O’Reilly and as a sidekick on his radio program. John also mentioned the “terrorist fist jab” remark. I doubt very highly that she is a Democrat.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:41 pm
E.D. Hill and Morton Kondracke are definately NOT Democrats. Hey WFG! :)
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Tammy Bruce , someone i have a lot of respect for, is no longer a Democrat. She finally saw the light and left this year.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I love how ideologicaly storm troopers like John is going to dictate who calls themselves a Democrat and who don’t.
From what I can tell of the PUMA movement there are a shitload of Democrats who have no intention on voting for the Marxist .. are they not Democrats?
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:08 pm
so there was a response from think progress? why not get an informed and honest analysis instead?
Why wasnt McCain’s op ed published? because he talks trash about Obama, and we cannot allow any negative words about Mr B Hussein Obama. its just not fair, Obama doesnt have any substance, its all a fake charade. So we cannot have a trusted source on international and military affairs say something that goes against the phoney baloney caricature that the left has worked so hard to give to Obama.
They wouldnt do this except for the black issue, Barack needs the extra help to get elected because he is a minority. kind of like that program that gives discounts and special help to minorities to afford housing and food? Or to get into schools?
the leftwing media has really gone overboard to help Obama out, maybe they have to otherwise they could be accused of being racist if they didnt fully support Obama?
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Hey, yea, good to have you back WFG
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
@Vince
I was starting to take you somewhat seriously and then you throw out a “Marxist” comment. You seem like a pretty smart guy and it’s a shame that you let people like Michael Savage dictate what you say
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Thank you.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:57 am
Tom & Michael,
I’m a registered Republican who refuses to defend John McCain on anything but his military service. His past liberal leanings hinder my support. To support and vote for someone solely because of their party affilliation is dishonest, disgeaceful, and unpatrotic. I could’nt vote for Obama, or McCain and sleep at night.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:26 am
So who are you going to vote for, Bob Barr? Or stay home?
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:59 am
Michael,
You tell me Mikey. Bob Barr or stay at home?
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Michael: it’s a shame you hold onto petty views such as that I listen to Michael Savage. Should I start making assumptions about your private life?
Why is it that you Lefties feel that you can invent any lie about someone that you feel like?
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
The point is that Obama is not a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination, and it’s people like Savage who have been perpetuating the claim that he is in some sort of attempt to scare people into voting for McCain.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Michael,
Get this through your twisted thick liberal head. True conservatives will not be offended by comments regarding a left wing Republican such as McCain. Most true conservatives (like me) respect his military service, however, we will disregard party loyalty and affilliation just as the party has done to us by promoting a candidate who, time and again, has ignored us. So quit wasting our time. Try something else offensive, OK?
July 24th, 2008 at 11:05 am
@The Conservative
I’m really not sure why you’re addressing that post to me. I never said that you HAD TO vote for John McCain just because he is a Republican. I was just wondering, if you are not voting for McCain, do you plan to vote for somebody like Bob Barr or just not vote at all? It’s merely curiosity and I wish that you could get it through your “twisted conservative head” that I’m not here to offend you. I’m just trying to have a discussion. People in your position (conservatives who are unhappy with John McCain) will play a big role in the election’s outcome.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Michael- you’re absolutely right, and I’ve heard many Republicans and Democrats state that they’re going to stay home this year bc they are not satisfied with their nominees.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
When people say things about McCain .. I’m like “yeah so”.. I’m certainly no backer or defender of him.
My imperative is to keep people from Weather Underground, the Nation of Islam.. Black Liberation Theology far away from any Federal appointments that the President gets to make.
If that means destroying the Republican Party by electing yet another triangularaztionist In McCain then so be it.
Country before Party .. that’s the conservative way.
Power at all costs .. that’s the Left way.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Country before Party .. that’s the liberal way.
Power at all costs .. that’s the conservative way.
Fixed.
This is based on everything that’s happened in the last 8 years under a conservative republican.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
TDro: Obviously you know nothing (as usual) about what conservatives believe.
Hint: We’re not belligerently insane irrational Leftists.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:07 pm