Why the New York Times Rejected John McCain's Op-Ed
Satire By John W. Lillpop
Just what is it with Op-Ed editor David Shipley at the New York Times?
How can an objective editor at a major metropolitan newspaper reject an Op-Ed submitted by the presumptive presidential nominee of the Republican Party? Especially since the NYT recently published a piece by McCain's Democrat opponent?
Where in the hell is appropriate respect for the "Fairness Doctrine," Mr. Shipley?
By the grace of God, we were able to hack into Shipley's "Rejected" file on his laptop and uncover his critical notes backing up the McCain turn down.
The Shipley notes:
Memo to File:
Reviewed and rejected John McCain's editorial titled, 'My Plan for Iraq' based on the following professional objections:
1. Plagiarism. Although we have not yet located the exact speech, it is obvious that McCain has simply found an old George W. Bush, cleaned up the mangled grammar, and claimed the words and ideas as his own.
Besides being unethical, McCain's "speech" is more of the same old tired Bush prattle that got the US into the quagmire in Iraq.
2. Consistency: Unlike Senator Obama, McCain reiterates the same position on Iraq throughout his Op-Ed. No flip-flops are bad form, dull.
Shows lack of imagination, and is clearly a racist attempt to put down the next president of the United States.
3. Too pro-American, sugarcoated, patriotic. Needs to appeal to all NYT editors and readers, most of who hate America and want Islamofascists to win the WOT.
4. Time lines missing. Need firm time lines showing absolute withdrawal of US troops within sixteen months, max. Without timelines, zero credibility.
5. Fails to mention that George W. Bush is an incompetent fool. As Speaker Pelosi has so eloquently stated, W is a total failure.
All Op-Eds must have at least two zingers bitchslapping W, the most dangerous terrorist ever to occupy the planet.
6. Relies too heavily on warmongers like General David Petreaus for war strategy and plans. Needs input from anti-war intellectuals like Cindy Sheehan, Harry Reid, and John Murtha.
Balance, balance, balance! And finally,
7. Critical of Barack Obama, presumptive 44th president of the United States. Smacks of racism and anti-black bigotry.
DS
Note to Secretary: Please e-mail rejection notice to McCain campaign including an invitation to resubmit this right wing diatribe if they so desire.
Then please block McCain's e-mail from making it into my inbox. Have all McCain e-mails deleted upon receipt and reported as spam. DS
Just what is it with Op-Ed editor David Shipley at the New York Times?
How can an objective editor at a major metropolitan newspaper reject an Op-Ed submitted by the presumptive presidential nominee of the Republican Party? Especially since the NYT recently published a piece by McCain's Democrat opponent?
Where in the hell is appropriate respect for the "Fairness Doctrine," Mr. Shipley?
By the grace of God, we were able to hack into Shipley's "Rejected" file on his laptop and uncover his critical notes backing up the McCain turn down.
The Shipley notes:
Memo to File:
Reviewed and rejected John McCain's editorial titled, 'My Plan for Iraq' based on the following professional objections:
1. Plagiarism. Although we have not yet located the exact speech, it is obvious that McCain has simply found an old George W. Bush, cleaned up the mangled grammar, and claimed the words and ideas as his own.
Besides being unethical, McCain's "speech" is more of the same old tired Bush prattle that got the US into the quagmire in Iraq.
2. Consistency: Unlike Senator Obama, McCain reiterates the same position on Iraq throughout his Op-Ed. No flip-flops are bad form, dull.
Shows lack of imagination, and is clearly a racist attempt to put down the next president of the United States.
3. Too pro-American, sugarcoated, patriotic. Needs to appeal to all NYT editors and readers, most of who hate America and want Islamofascists to win the WOT.
4. Time lines missing. Need firm time lines showing absolute withdrawal of US troops within sixteen months, max. Without timelines, zero credibility.
5. Fails to mention that George W. Bush is an incompetent fool. As Speaker Pelosi has so eloquently stated, W is a total failure.
All Op-Eds must have at least two zingers bitchslapping W, the most dangerous terrorist ever to occupy the planet.
6. Relies too heavily on warmongers like General David Petreaus for war strategy and plans. Needs input from anti-war intellectuals like Cindy Sheehan, Harry Reid, and John Murtha.
Balance, balance, balance! And finally,
7. Critical of Barack Obama, presumptive 44th president of the United States. Smacks of racism and anti-black bigotry.
DS
Note to Secretary: Please e-mail rejection notice to McCain campaign including an invitation to resubmit this right wing diatribe if they so desire.
Then please block McCain's e-mail from making it into my inbox. Have all McCain e-mails deleted upon receipt and reported as spam. DS
posted by John W Lillpop | 8:32 AM
<< Home