John McCain: Ignore the New York Times

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

Senator Barack Obama New York Times Op-Ed piece July 14, 2008.


There's fair and then there's the New York Times. The New York Times refused to print Senator John McCain's polar opposite Op-Ed piece to balance the charges of 'same-old-same-old' Bush Failed policies and the audaciously hopeful fiat to Joint Chiefs of Staff, "As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq."

As a Democrat voting for John McCain, I trust McCain's judgment and character. I have no idea what Senator Obama's judgment and character might be other than that of a very elegant politician who has no problem consigning political liabilities to oblivion once they become too public. Obama is a great speech reader and set piece prop - he looks and sound good even when he ain't.

John McCain walks the walk and too often trips over the talk. Most people I know have that very problem. Sometimes there is a tendency among very public people to pretend that they can divine the depths of another's heart by the choice of words. Parsing has become sucker-punching in today's timid thought climate, only less vital to what passes ( er, parses) for debate is the volume at which one manages to scream questions.

The New York Times goes one further - they will not print words that they do not particularly like. They seem to be taking their cues from the Cable TV medium - say what Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, or Bill Maher deem appropriate or stand up for ridicule. The New York Times is nothing if not terribly sensitive to criticism from the political Left - delicate and fragile.

I hope that John McCain parts company with these delicate flowers. The Opinion Hothouse that Obama's handlers own is unforgiving - ask Ryan Lizza!

Give the New York Times a nod and then move on - a polite, perfunctory heads -up regular guy salute and keep walking.

Let them assume that you are only interested in talking to your right wing friends - whoever the hell they are! Allow bloated mopes like Olbermann to soil his britches in straining to make a point about the cartoon of your character that Obama's handlers strain to make. You have the voters. It is deeds and not rhetoric that people will support in the voting booth.

Thank the New York Times for their endorsement of you in the Primaries, Senator McCain and then ignore them. They are too delicate for the bare-knuckled world of deeds and not words.

Click my post title for the full text of McCain's rejected NYT piece from Chicago Daily Observer