[img]1|left|||no_popup[/img]
With 98 percent of American media openly rooting for Barack Obama to win the White House, and 92 percent of them volunteering to drive him there, Mr. Obama’s campaign has just scored another unique victory.
The Drudge Report was first this afternoon with the fascinating news that The New York Times, America’s premier newspaper, has just rejected an op-ed piece submitted by John McCain.
My golly, it’s another stunning upset by those noble boys and girls in the mainstream media who break their aching backs bending over to be… What is that elusive, old-fashioned Republicanb concept? Yes, hoping to appear fair.
A week ago today, amid circus-type ballyhoo, The Times published an opinion piece signed off on by Mr. Obama, repeating his one-step plan for ending the Iraq War by just walking away from it. In the 6 days since, Mr. Obama has received oceans of heroic coverage for his overseas trip, publicity so grandiloquent that the greatest fundraiser in the history of Presidential politics could not have afforded this kind of press had he been billed.
Heaven Forfend, We Have Been Struck by a Coincidence
During that interlude, Abe Lincoln has been written and talked about more than Mr. McCain, who has received less newspaper coverage than next year’s Culver High football junior varsity. On radio, television and the internet, pundits have joked how, short of dying, Mr. McCain won’t attract any reporters until Mr. Obama returns to this country.
But Mr. McCain fooled ‘em. He broke through the wall of silence in a rather humiliating manner when The New York Times turned him away at the door.
By the darnedest coincidence, the copy editor at the Times who made the decision is a former employee of the Clinton Administration. Catch me, Murgatroyd, before I fall on my disbelieving head. By golly, I think we have here an illustration of Goober-style, world-class coincidence.
Why? Well, the boys at The Times are a little too smooth to say they turned down Mr. McCain because he was a Republican. How would it look to that minority of Republicans whom The Times believes can read?
So, The Times, not at all embarrassed, cleared its magnificent throat and explained that Mr. McCain’s submission failed to “mirror” Mr. Obama’s op-ed of a week ago. Although the Timesperson coughed a couple of times in trying to keep her expression on straight, she seemed to be saying that since Mr. McCain’s piece did not parallel Mr. Obama’s, that is, make the same points, the Times could not print it.
Who Is Telling the Truth?
The McCain campaign said it did. Indeed, they asserted that the candidate’s op-ed was a rebuttal to Mr. Obama’s cut-and-run strategy.
Pound sand, The Times replied.
But, the highly sensitive copy editor, recalling his days in the Clinton White House when the all the President’s men tried to treat the Republican enemy fairly, said he would be willing to look at a second draft if the McCain campaign would execute a complete rewrite.
The McCain response may be printable in the L.A. Weekly, not in this newspaper.
The boys down the hall in marketing used to tell us that if you were No. 2, you had to try harder.
These, however, are different times. Our gilded comrades at The New York Times have updated the axiom to read that The Only Way No. 2 Is Going To Sneak Into Their Precious Print Is to Emulate No. 1, not, heaven forbid, disagree with him.
