To which I would respond, who owns the printing presses of the New York Times? I believe it would be the paper. Therefore, it's not their responsibility to run anything the presumptive candidate of the Republican Party throws over the transom. If the proffered piece was as the editors say it was, it was pretty much cold gruel. Remarking how Obama was wrong about the surge and hasn't apologized for that hardly qualifies as something new, much less some insight into candidate McCain's vision for the region. Saying he isn't in favor of keeping the US there forever hardly constitutes much worth pondering. Frankly, the frightening thing to me is how little McCain is willing to put on the table in terms of much of anything of substance vis-a-vis Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran. It's frightening because how we deal with all three countries will be one of the key foreign policy concerns of the administration that will succeed the current dismal failure.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Therefore, it's not their responsibility to run anything the presumptive candidate of the Republican Party throws over the transom.

I agree with this, to an extent, but my response is that the NYT can't have it both ways.  If it wants to be considered a partisan paper with standards on par with the NY Post, then sure it can do whatever it wants to.  It's a free country, so be it.  But if it truly wants to be considered a paper of record, with high standards and a general reputation for unbiased coverage, then I think this was a bad move.  I happen to agree with all your criticisms of McCain (I think my posting history makes it pretty clear I favor Obama, although I haven't completely made up my mind), but I still think he deserves the chance to say his piece.  If the newspaper editors felt it wasn't all that great, well, they certainly have the ability to write up their own editorial saying just that and run it right below McCain's piece.  That's dialog - this is censorship (yes, I realize it's not government censorship, but it's censorship nonetheless - and it doesn't have to be government sponsored for it to be a problem).

I don't think they've said a final, "No," to McCain though. The said, "not in this form." I think that's enough of an out for them and a nuance to the "NYT Says NO To McCain" type headline that media (even the NYT) love to run even when it's not really true.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I don't think they've said a final, "No," to McCain though. The said, "not in this form."

What other forum would there be?  Are they going to give him an advice column?

It's my understanding that they said no to what McCain wrote with the constructive criticism that they would happily run an op-ed if he were to saying something new. They didn't let Obama just post his talking points--he moved the Iraqi conversation forward. It's my understanding that the NYT said this particular piece McCain submitted is just the same criticism he's been lobbing at Obama about the surge for the last six months. How is that supposed to interest their readers? Come back to us with something you haven't said before is essentially my understanding of what was communicated.

Hell, how is a six month old criticism of Obama's opposition to the surge supposed to interest possible McCain votes? For my money, the NYT is doing McCain a service. His campaign is bogging down hardcore right now. Another week of Obama globe trotting Presidentially and it'll be in major meltdown mode. Maliki has said the US should be out by 2010 and the man who may very well be President within six months has agreed while Bush has essentially taken a back seat. This is a MAJOR change in US-Iraq relations. McCain needs to react to that.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

They didn't let Obama just post his talking points--he moved the Iraqi conversation forward.

Not quite; he moved his position on Iraq forward, from "the surge will fail" to "the surge has succeeded." McCain didn't need to change his position, because it was always "the surge will bring positive results in Iraq." He was correct. It looks like dirty pool to penalize McCain for not needing to change his opinion.

"But if it truly wants to be considered a paper of record, with high standards and a general reputation for unbiased coverage, then I think this was a bad move."

The NYT used to brag about being "America's Newspaper of Record".  It hasn't been for many years.  It's just one more rag.  Pick up just about any local paper, and you'll get just as good news.  Better still, go online for your news.  There are gobs of them

http://www.cosmictribune.org/

All you use up are a few electrons, no trees were killed, and nothing to recycle.  The printed newspaper is on its deathbed.  

there's only one way to find out...

Remarking how Obama was wrong about the surge and hasn't apologized for that hardly qualifies as something new, much less some insight into candidate McCain's vision for the region.

Based on that assessment, shouldn't the NYT have declined to run any coverage about Obama in the primary run-up? What was he saying other than "Bush was wrong to get us into Iraq" -- ground well-covered by just about every other Democrat since 2004?

Gerry, here you're referring to news coverage.  What the McCain piece was was an op ed piece.  You do see the difference between the two don't you?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

The NYT's decision to treat McCain's piece (and Obama's as well) as part of their opinion section is an editorial choice. When the two people who are running for the top office in government offer a chance to publish their words unmediated, that's news.

So is the decision to only publish one of them.

Obama transcends editorial policy.

I think what we're seeing lately is less about Obama rising up over, and more about the media going down on.

Well, (new to me)

1. Deployment of 2 additional combat brigades to Afghanistan (presumably taken from Iraq).

2. A 16 month reduction in force in opposition to what Petraeus recommends.

3. The idea that the surge did not work.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

Actually...it's more like the Plastic subq...with a lot less snark and invective.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

But, truth be told, I think at this point McCain has probably given up pursuing the publication of his op-ed piece satisfied that, by virtue of the blow up, he's got more publicity out of it than if the thing had been published.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if that were the case. I haven't seen whether or not McCain has tried to resubmit the piece as the NYT asked.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

He has, thefadd, and in it he's completely reversed everything he said in his first submission.

and in it he's completely reversed everything he said in his first submission.

Well, he's got to keep his reputation intact, doesn't he?

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

who apparently doesn't have a very strong grasp of military operations, and not McCain, who apparently does.

Really? McCain seems to have little grasp on anything approaching facts, military or otherwise (YouTube link) (can you say deer-in-the-headlights?).
There's the surge numbers imbroglio. The Sunni/Shia imbroglio. The apparent inability to grasp simple mathematics on placing brigades in Afghanistan.
Dick Polman gets it right when he tags all of this McCain's reign of error:

...he continues to make inexplicable factual errors without any willingness to acknowledge them. If more people were paying attention, they might well wonder whether this guy is as sharp about foreign policy as he purports to be...

So either McCain truly doesn't know how many troops are stationed in Iraq, or he is willfully twisting the actual troop numbers in order to cheerlead (again) for the Bush war team...
...McCain has twice confused the Sunnis and the Shiites. (He has insisted that Iran was training al Qaeda operatives, whereas, in reality al Qaeda is a Sunni organization and Iran is run by Shiites. He has insisted that Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the most powerful figure in that country, whereas, in reality, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iran's national security council are the powers that run the show. (McCain is fine with the idea of repeating the error about Ahmadinejad: "I think of you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they'd know.") And after a recent clash between Iraqi government troops and Shiite insurgents pledged to Moqtada al-Sadr, McCain erroneously stated that a chastened Sadr had sought a ceasefire, whereas, in reality, the ceasefire was kick-started when the Iraqi government asked its allies in Iran to broke the process; in the end, Sadr's forces were left virtually intact.

Facts are not something that you can, with a straight face, say that McCain has a grasp of. He's clearly struggling in areas that are supposed to be his home turf, as well as areas that aren't. He's clearly in over his head, and unless the McCain team can turn on the bilge pumps, he's gonna sink under the limitations of his own behavior and knowledge.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

I'm not sure you really want to go toe-to-toe on an Obama v. McCain stupid speech match-up. The recent Obama mistakes I can roll off the top of my head include: not knowing how long a presidential term is (or does he intend to repeal the 22nd Amendment?); declaring unilaterally that all Jerusalem should be turned over to Israel; claiming US troops liberated Auschwitz; claiming he's on the Senate Banking Committee (he's not); claiming Chavez was elected after Bush; and thinking there are 57 states.

The dude is a one-man gaffe machine.

The dude is a one-man gaffe machine.

Almost as many gaffes since the beginning of the campaign as McCain has made this week!  And such substantial ones, too!

The scales have fallen from my eyes.  I'm voting for the senile old man.

Seriously, gerry, we've all heard Obama speak, and he is clear, articulate and intelligent.  The only person you are capable of fooling is yourself.