The McCain Thread

[jaguarr]

Now we can talk about this thing with a little bit more informed opinions.

In my opinion I think it's obvious that Obama's was more about his ideal's about Iraq and what he would like to do and McCain's was more about what was wrong with Obama and his ideals than saying what his own ideals are.

But that's just my opinion. Read it for yourself.

You nicely summed up my take on the difference between the two as well.

jag

 

[StorminNorman]

The difference I see is that while Obama mentions McCain three times in his piece, to demonstrate the difference between their positions (not attack him) while discussing the over-arching issue as a whole, McCain almost obsessively makes his piece completely about Obama.

jag

Again - because it was a rebuttal. Its job was to comment on Obama's plan and to state McCain's vision. It succeeds in both of these goals.

 

[Kelly]

The difference I see is that while Obama mentions McCain three times in his piece, to demonstrate the difference between their positions (not attack him) while discussing the over-arching issue as a whole, McCain almost obsessively makes his piece completely about Obama.

jag

Again, as I said, one is a policy piece, the other is a rebuttal.

They are different in style.

 

[Superman]

It's not like the NYT's said, hey McCain how about you giving us a policy piece.

Umm Isn't that exactly what the NYTs asked for? I could be wrong here but I thought that's what they wanted, A policy piece, Not a rebuttal to Obama.

 

[Matt]

Now we can talk about this thing with a little bit more informed opinions.

In my opinion I think it's obvious that Obama's was more about his ideal's about Iraq and what he would like to do and McCain's was more about what was wrong with Obama and his ideals than saying what his own ideals are.

But that's just my opinion. Read it for yourself.

But isn't that the point of a rebuttal?

 

[Kelly]

Umm Isn't that exactly what the NYTs asked for? I could be wrong here but I thought that's what they wanted, A policy piece, Not a rebuttal to Obama.

They didn't ask McCain for anything. That was asked, after they read his rebuttal. That is not what McCain was writing. He wasn't writing a policy piece, it was a rebuttal to a policy piece.

Was it a tough piece?.... yeah. Rebuttals usually are.

 

[jaguarr]

Again - because it was a rebuttal. Its job was to comment on Obama's plan and to state McCain's vision. It succeeds in both of these goals.

Again, as I said, one is a policy piece, the other is a rebuttal.

They are different in style.

And The Times said they wanted a policy piece from McCain, not a rebuttal piece. *shrug*

jag

 

[Matt]

Umm Isn't that exactly what the NYTs asked for? I could be wrong here but I thought that's what they wanted, A policy piece, Not a rebuttal to Obama.

But time out, the New York Times publishes rebuttals all the time. Why not McCain's? When did the New York Times become the Georgetown Journal of Law and Policy? McCain needs to write a policy paper to have a rebuttal published?

 

[Superman]

The way I thought it went was that the NYTs asked both for a policy piece on Iraq.

If they asked Obama for his ideals on Iraq and then asked McCain for a rebuttal then that's one thing, But if they asked both for a policy piece on Iraq then McCain can't follow directions.

 

[Superman]

But time out, the New York Times publishes rebuttals all the time. Why not McCain's? When did the New York Times become the Georgetown Journal of Law and Policy? McCain needs to write a policy paper to have a rebuttal published?

BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR A REBUTTAL THIS TIME. THEY WANTED A POLICY PIECE FROM BOTH OF THEM.

Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Matt]

They didn't ask for anything. Obama wrote an op-ed piece on the war in Iraq, McCain wrote a rebuttal.

 

[Kelly]

And The Times said they wanted a policy piece from McCain, not a rebuttal piece. *shrug*

jag

After they read the rebuttal........they did not ask for policy pieces from the 2 men. Obama wrote an op-ed. McCain has done that several times for the NYT's....6 to be exact. McCain wrote a rebuttal, and instead of giving a legitimate reason for not publishing a rebuttal, they ask him to write an op-ed.

BTW, latest news is that there is a rumor that the NYT's may infact publish McCain's piece. But this is still a rumor.



Also, something else I found.....
This is a parody people, DON'T TAKE THIS AS THE ACTUAL NOTES.....lmao

http://www.thenoseonyourface.com/co...shipleys-notes-on-mccains-rejected-editorial/

 

[Superman]

So what you are telling me is that the NYTs didn't ask them for anything and that Obama just sent in a policy piece to the NYTs out of the blue and that McCain was just sending in a rebuttal?

I don't buy it. The NYTs asked for something from them and I want to know what it was.

 

[Matt]

Of course they sent it on their own, it is a campaign tool. Are you that biased Superman?

 

[lazur]

Of course they sent it on their own, it is a campaign tool. Are you that biased Superman?

The NYTs is the worst politically biased newspaper in the entire country. It's losing subscribers at alarming rates and its stock holders are ready to bail.

And I'll answer on behalf of Superman - yes, yes he is.

 

[Superman]

Of course they sent it on their own, it is a campaign tool. Are you that biased Superman?

This has nothing to do with bias and you know it so just stop with the attacks.

This has to do with facts. Did the NYTs ask for a piece from them or not? If they did then what did they ask for? If not then I agree, The NYTs should have posted McCain's piece. But I want to know one way or the other with facts, Not here say.

 

[Superman]

The NYTs is the worst politically biased newspaper in the entire country. It's losing subscribers at alarming rates and its stock holders are ready to bail.

And I'll answer on behalf of Superman - yes, yes he is.

Speaking of bias...

 

[StorminNorman]

This has nothing to do with bias and you know it so just stop with the attacks.

This has to do with facts. Did the NYTs ask for a piece from them or not? If they did then what did they ask for? If not then I agree, The NYTs should have posted McCain's piece. But I want to know one way or the other with facts, Not here say.

I believe Obama's piece was made at his own insistence and not a request from the Times. They did, as any responsible paper would

Upon reading Obama's Op-Ed, McCain wrote a rebuttal.

Said rebuttal was rejected.

 

[Superman]

I believe Obama's piece was made at his own insistence and not a request from the Times. They did, as any responsible paper would

Upon reading Obama's Op-Ed, McCain wrote a rebuttal.

Said rebuttal was rejected.

I understand what you are saying and I know that's what you believe, But I would like to get more than one persons belief or here say.

Like I said before, If that's what happend then the NYTs was WRONG in not posting the rebuttal. All I'm asking for is confirmation that that's what happend.

 

[Kelly]

I don't even know that the NYT's was WRONG, in not publishing it. They reject a good portion of politicians op-eds. They have, however, published 6 of McCain's. They have actually rejected most of Richardson's Op-eds...lol. They have the right to reject whoever they want.

I pause, with the timing, and specific rejection of this one. That is my problem with it.

 

[Kelly]

As far as did they ask?


Editorials are usually not "asked for", as in, would you write an opinion editorial on this subject. Usually the person, whether its Joe Public, or Politician or whoever submits their editorial, and then the paper, either prints it, asks the person to tweek it, or they totally reject it.

In this case, I have read 10+ articles on this, and all I have read is that Obama submitted his editorial as a preface to his visit to the Middle East for the NYT's to hopefully print. McCain submitted his rebuttal, it was rejected on the grounds that it held no new information, even though Obama's op-ed was simply repeats of his past few speeches in reference to the war in Iraq. The NYT's asked that McCain rewrite his op-ed including such specifics as a timetable, etc. In other words, to mirror how Obama wrote his. He refused, because he does not believe a timetable is feasible at this time. Therefore, his op-ed was not published.

 

[Superman]

I don't even know that the NYT's was WRONG, in not publishing it. They reject a good portion of politicians op-eds. They have, however, published 6 of McCain's. They have actually rejected most of Richardson's Op-eds...lol. They have the right to reject whoever they want.

I pause, with the timing, and specific rejection of this one. That is my problem with it.

You're right, They do have the right to reject whoever they want. I just feel that IF the NYTs didn't ask for a piece from them and McCain just wanted to give a rebuttal to Obama then they should have let him out of fairness. That's just my opinion though.

If you ask me though I think McCain should have spent more time coming up with and explaining his own plans on Iraq instead of telling us what, in his opinion, was wrong with Obama's plan.

 

[lazur]

You're right, They do have the right to reject whoever they want. I just feel that IF the NYTs didn't ask for a piece from them and McCain just wanted to give a rebuttal to Obama then they should have let him out of fairness. That's just my opinion though.

If you ask me though I think McCain should have spent more time coming up with and explaining his own plans on Iraq instead of telling us what, in his opinion, was wrong with Obama's plan.

Umm, McCain explains his position on Iraq ALL THE TIME. He doesn't need an op-ed piece like Obama does since the guy is constantly out there doing town hall meetings.

Besides, it doesn't matter what McCain's position is to hardcore dems (arguably most of the readership of the sloppy NYTs anyway) - they will vote for Obama regardless.

What we really need is a DEBATE between Obama and McCain. However, so far, Obama has apparently been too afraid of such a debate; or at least that's the conclusion I'm coming to since he refuses to participate. Then again, who can blame him when he's weighing an insignificant three years in office to McCain's 26. McCain obviously has just a tad more knowledge on the workings of not only our government, but also the governments of the world.

 

[Kelly]

Um, and for those that are wondering when these 2 men will get together.

Well it has been confirmed that Obama and McCain will be on the same stage at the Saddleback Church, with the Rev. Rick Warren on August 16th.

He has been friends with both for years, and he got them. Good for him.

They both will have an hour. Obama won the toss, and he will have the first hour.

 

[lazur]

Um, and for those that are wondering when these 2 men will get together.

Well it has been confirmed that Obama and McCain will be on the same stage at the Saddleback Church, with the Rev. Rick Warren on August 16th.

He has been friends with both for years, and he got them. Good for him.

They both will have an hour. Obama won the toss, and he will have the first hour.

I'd rather see an unmoderated debate where the two candidates 'talk' in a town hall setting. Obama is a great speaker ... when he's had time to practice. In terms of knowledge and experience and world view, however, he will get stomped by McCain, and he knows it.