Why the Times rejected McCain's Op Ed

NY Times political blogger Kate Phillips reports on the behind the scenes arrogant thinking of the NY Times' editors who rejected Senator John McCain's potential Op-Ed. 

After David Shipley, the NY Times' Op Ed editor, explained in an e mail to Michael Goldfarb, who writes for  McCain's blog, why "the Obama piece worked for me" Shipley demanded that a McCain Op Ed worthy of appearing in the NY Times
"...would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.
Shipley graciously refrained from requiring McCain to also offer his first born. 

Revealing their lack of strategic war experience and their naivete, both Shipley and Obama apparently believe it is possible "to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory" and that it will then happen.  Clearly.  And of course the negative  consequences of revealing all these "clear plans" to opponents and enemies is less important than the honor of appearing in the NY Times. 

Even Ms. Phillips, who was the deputy Op Ed editor a few years ago, seems puzzled by Shipley's rejection although she valiantly tries to defend his actions by writing "dueling candidate Op-Eds sometimes rise to a different level, when they go beyond back-and-forth or standard talking points that everyone is familiar with."

No, not everyone is familiar with them so the NY Times would have done the voters a real public service by having each candidate articulate those "standard talking points" in his own style. But they didn't.  By rejecting McCain's article because it  didn't work for David Shipley the Times  publicly revealed its own deep biases no matter how much they protest. 

That is very clear. 
NY Times political blogger Kate Phillips reports on the behind the scenes arrogant thinking of the NY Times' editors who rejected Senator John McCain's potential Op-Ed. 

After David Shipley, the NY Times' Op Ed editor, explained in an e mail to Michael Goldfarb, who writes for  McCain's blog, why "the Obama piece worked for me" Shipley demanded that a McCain Op Ed worthy of appearing in the NY Times
"...would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.
Shipley graciously refrained from requiring McCain to also offer his first born. 

Revealing their lack of strategic war experience and their naivete, both Shipley and Obama apparently believe it is possible "to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory" and that it will then happen.  Clearly.  And of course the negative  consequences of revealing all these "clear plans" to opponents and enemies is less important than the honor of appearing in the NY Times. 

Even Ms. Phillips, who was the deputy Op Ed editor a few years ago, seems puzzled by Shipley's rejection although she valiantly tries to defend his actions by writing "dueling candidate Op-Eds sometimes rise to a different level, when they go beyond back-and-forth or standard talking points that everyone is familiar with."

No, not everyone is familiar with them so the NY Times would have done the voters a real public service by having each candidate articulate those "standard talking points" in his own style. But they didn't.  By rejecting McCain's article because it  didn't work for David Shipley the Times  publicly revealed its own deep biases no matter how much they protest. 

That is very clear.