The NYT is long since past simply ‘wasting’ its freedom.
By setting itself as a partisan promoter, it is not really any different from talk radio, which the NYT seeks to suppress.
They think this will insure them control of the public square. It only guarnatees that their turn is coming.

I just sent this response to the NYT’s. I hope it meets Sir Shipley’s criteria, of course I’m not the anointed one.

Dear David Shipley:

The decision by the New York Times editorial staff to not print John McCain’s editorial response to Senator Obama’s plan for Iraq is just further proof that the New York Times is no longer a serious journalistic enterprise, but instead a illegitimate and failing liberal editorial magazine. I’m not even going to mention the gossip column trash you printed about the Senator and a lobbyist, because unlike the New York Times – I’m not in the business of spreading lies.

There is no justification for your failure to print John McCain’s editorial. Barack Obama has not been anointed President. Unfortunately for you Mr. Shipley, in America he must be elected and the American people deserve to hear from both candidates; not just the hip cool one who has been endorsed by your former boss (Bill Clinton).

Furthermore, stating that you would be willing to accept another draft is belittling and insulting towards a Presidential candidate. How many drafts was Barack Obama required to submit? I’m guessing there should be at least one draft for each of the previous positions Senator Obama has held in regards to Iraq within the last 3 weeks or so.

Perhaps Senator Obama should have waited until his return from Iraq to before developing this “plan”. John McCain developed his successful strategy after many successive trips to Iraq and consultations with the generals and troops on the ground. Senator Obama instead thought it was appropriate to develop a strategy and THEN go visit with the generals and troops.

Back when the surge was just getting started, Obama described it as a “continuation of failed policy” and instead called for immediate troop withdrawals. Simply put, Senator Obama could not have been more wrong. The surge has made Iraq safer for our troops and the Iraqi people. If he had consulted with generals prior to the surge, as Senator McCain did, perhaps Obama would have had the fortitude to stand up for an unpopular yet much needed change in strategy, as McCain did.

Once again Obama is showing the same reckless behavior he showed at the start of the surge; developing a policy position for political points and without talking with generals on the ground and with complete disregard to facts on the ground.

Is this really the kind of change we want? Or do we want the kind of successful change that Senator McCain risked his campaign on, the kind of change which has made our troops safer and a stable democratic state being the outcome in Iraq a reality?

For everyone but the New York Times, I would presume the answer is clear.

Sincerely,
Brandon . ***

Similar to what Rudy did, consisting of McCain’s letter and some of Obama’s quotes on the surge.

not publish McCain’s editorial. Anyway,that’s the essence why we, Republicans and Conservatives, oppose Fairness Doctrine of Pelosi. Don’t get me wrong. Let NYT reject and lambast the McCain Editorial. This will make the said Editorial more interesting for many people. And in saying that, why not look for other medium where the Editorial can reach its intended readers.

*As Brandon said, instead of an Editorial, why not publish it as an Ad. *

Sadly to us, the Ad would mean “additional cost” to us. Sadly to NYT, we now have the right that NYT is the official paper of the Socialists and Communists acting like liberals (or briefly Dems Party). We must now declare NYT as the Far Left democrat-run paper. And that means only one thing: we can read the paper freely at the web or borrow it from our friendly dems; but don’t buy that paper or any of NYT stuff.)

Gosh, I can’t even call it a newspaper. It’s just like the HuffPo.

Buying an ad plays to these guys’ game.

The GOP needs to stop playing their game.

No more engagement.
CUT THEM OFF.

Give the NYT nothing. Don’t talk to their reporters. Fire any staffer that talks to their reporters. Give them nothing.

Finally reduce them to talking among themselves inside the leftist echo-chamber.

And in so doing, render them irrelevant (and probably financial insolvent, as well).

Reward truly “non-biased” (and also “friendly”) news organizations. Embargo the rest.

The days of a mostly “unbiased” and “objective” Press and Media are over. The sooner we as a Party accept that, and start acting accordingly, the better off we’ll be.

The New York Times has gone from the Grey Lady to the Old Grey Democrat Whore.

even for libs, “Protectors of Free Speech”. Total bushleague.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/the-mccain-op-ed-the-new-york-times-wouldnt-publish/

With the free publicity, McCain should publish his OpEd in the NY Post, WaPo, WSJ. Pick one, and they would have taken it, just to show up the Times.

Maybe even USA Today would have taken the chance.

What was that about the reinstituting fairness doctrine?

At least it’s getting McCain some free press. If they had just run it and said nothing, it would have come and gone, but now people will pay attention to it. The full piece is now up at Drudge, more people read that than the nyt.

is clearly to blame for this latest outrage!

McCain’s editorial was by far more credible, newsworthy and readable the Kristol’s numbing space-filler.

Actually – after reading the article… it’s probably better it was not printed. Ugh

“But are there really conservatives in NYTimes? “

They are either faux-conservatives or neutered potted-plant ones, that’s my point. Neither Kristol nor Brooks are Democrats. Kristol is a conservative, but he’s of the neocon, McCainiac, inside-the-beltway mold. Mike Savage he is not! David Brooks was that ‘balance’ to Mark Shields on the Lehrer show, but he’s an observer not an advocate, and his advice to conservatives is lately abysmal. Patrick Ruffini dissected his latest erroneous advice on Next Right, and see also my blog on this: Big Govt conservatism is an oxymoron.

“NYT also loves the profit they can get from the conservatives, not just from the dems.”
I think under Pinch, his deranged liberalism has long-since overwhelmed any business sense he might have had. He’s running the business into the ground in part due to his political biases, by his allowing such biases to undermine both good journalism and good business.

From the Red Hot link, in convenient jpg form

The NYTimes is no longer even trying to hide its bias and is no way an independent forum of the press and with that the McCain camp should pull all press badges.

Its revolting what the Times did here but of course they won’t print an op-ed which shows we are winning in Iraq because of the surge McCain and Bush pushed forward on while Obama and Times wanted to cut and run on.